Surrey Heath Borough Council Planning

SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of the Head of Built Environment to be considered at the meeting held on

20 October 2008

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE INDEX

WARD LOCATION APPLICATION ITEM PAGE NO NO NO

STM 13 VICTORIA AVENUE AND LAND TO THE REAR, 2008/0270 01 1 CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 3HP

MYT 105 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, 2008/0385 02 6 CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU16 6SD

STP 53 LONDON ROAD, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, 2008/0416 03 11 GU15 3UG

PAR AMBER LODGE, SPRINGFIELD ROAD, 2008/0436 04 26 CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 1AE

WAT 9-11 KROONER ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2QP 2008/0577 05 34

PAR ASHLEY HOUSE, WAVERLEY CLOSE, 2008/0619 06 40 CAMBERLEY, GU15 1JH

TOW ACCOMMODATION ABOVE THE GOOSE, 88-90 2008/0640 07 48 HIGH STREET, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 3RS

BIS 324 GUILDFORD ROAD, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 2008/0690 08 56 9AE

MYT 1 ROBERT WAY, MYTCHETT, CAMBERLEY, 2008/0751 09 69 GU16 6DU

FRG 221 FRIMLEY GREEN ROAD, FRIMLEY GREEN, 2008/0791 10 76 CAMBERLEY, GU16 6LA

MYT 85 - 93 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, 2008/0811 11 80 CAMBERLEY, GU16 6QP

STM HOMEBASE, 560 LONDON ROAD, CAMBERLEY, 2008/0848 12 90 GU15 3UF

01 2008/0270 Reg Date 16/05/2008 St. Michaels

LOCATION: 13 VICTORIA AVENUE AND LAND TO THE REAR, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 3HP PROPOSAL: Change of Use from B1 office/light industry to car repairs and servicing.(Retrospective). TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Holt Heath (Oxon) Ltd OFFICER: Duncan Carty

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This planning application relates to the change of use of two buildings from light industrial/offices (Class B1) to car repairs and servicing (Class B2). Parking and a second access is provided on land to the rear. This is a retrospective application.

1.2 The application site falls within the settlement area of Camberley, on the east side of Victoria Avenue, south of the road junction with A30 London Road. The 0.18 ha. site falls within a mixed use area with predominantly commercial development fronting London Road and residential properties within Victoria Avenue. The Victoria Court flats are to the north west with the public car park to the east.

1.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, and in terms of its impact on local character, residential amenity and highway safety. This application is recommended for approval.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The premises shall be used for car repairs and servicing and for no other purpose (including any other purposes in Class B2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

2. The existing fence on the south and west boundaries of the application site shall be retained at the same height in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies G24 Trees and H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas.

3. The parking spaces shown on the approved plan shall be laid out in a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority within three months from the date of this permission and thereafter not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure the provision of on-site parking accommodation and to accord with Policies M7 Off Street Car Parking, M8 Highway Design Standards of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy DN3 Parking Provision. 1 4. No work shall be carried out on Sundays, Public Holidays, or except between the hours of 8am and 6pm from Mondays to Saturdays. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Public Holidays’ include New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

5. No works or storage shall take place anywhere on the site except within the existing buildings unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted is considered to provide for the maintenance of the local economy and respects the character of surrounding development.

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

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

1. Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy E1: Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites Outside Core Employment Areas, Camberley Town Centre and Chobham, Policy M7: Off Street Car Parking and Policy M8: Highway Design Standards.

2. Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED) Policy L07: Employment Land, Policy DN2: Movement Implications of Development and Policy DN3: Parking Provision.

3. PPG 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation and notification responses.

3.2 Planning history.

2 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Camberley, on the east side of Victoria Avenue, south of the road junction with A30 London Road. The 0.18 ha. site falls within a mixed use area with predominantly commercial development fronting London Road and residential properties within Victoria Avenue. The Victoria Court flats are to the north west with the public car park to the east.

4.2 The application site includes two single storey buildings (13/13a Victoria Avenue) which have been used for light industrial and office purposes which front onto Victoria Avenue. Vacant land to the rear, including the site of the former Kings Arms P.H. [407 London Road] – now demolished and recently hard-surfaced, also forms part of this application site. This piece of land forms a gap between the Victoria Court flats and Cedar House, an office development, to the east. The principal public access to the site is from Victoria Avenue. A separate access onto the vacant site is available from the access road to the London Road public car park. The land gently slopes from north to south.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 FRI4780 Erect a workshop for welding purposes at 13a Victoria Avenue. Approved in July 1962 and implemented.

5.2 FRI/70/0271 Proposed reconstruction of building damaged by fire and used as offices, stores, workshop and welding at 13 Victoria Avenue. Approved in October 1970 and implemented. [Condition 3 of this permission limited the use of the building for these purposes until June 1976].

5.3 FRI/76/0428 Use of whole building approved under FRI/70/0271 for office, stores, workshop and welding purposes (excluding car repairs). Approved in July 1976 and implemented.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This planning application relates to the change of use of two buildings from light industrial/offices (Class B1) to car repairs and servicing (Class B2). The buildings are small single storey units comprising a total of 195 square metres in floorspace which historically have been used for both light industrial purposes (Class B1) and general industrial purposes (B2).

6.2 Nine parking spaces are to be provided on land to the rear (formerly 407 London Road) with an access from the London Road public car park access road. Hardstanding has been laid out on the remainder of the land to the rear, and remains unused.

6.3 This is a retrospective application. This application was to include car sales within its proposed uses, This proposed use has now been deleted from this application.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway No objections. Authority

7.2 Head of Planning There is no policy objections as car repairs/servicing is a Class B2 Policy use and so still [an] employment [generating use]. The issue is

3 whether, given the proximity to residential properties, there is an amenity issue as Class B1 use is by definition acceptable next to residential but Class B2 is not necessarily, dependant on noise, dirt, smell, etc.

7.3 Head of Environmental No objections, but the premises should not create a statutory Services nuisance from activities on site. [Officer comment: these powers are controlled under the Environmental Health legislation]. No complaints have been received in connection with the business that currently operates from the site.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report, three representations have been received in support of the proposal.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Camberley, as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The relevant policies relating to the above proposal are Policies G1, G4, E1, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Borough Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy SE4, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

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

• The principle of the development;

• The impact of the development on character;

• The impact of the development on residential amenity; and

• The impact of the development on parking and highway safety.

9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 Policy E1 of the Local Plan (as saved) indicates that development including the change of use within the curtilage of existing industrial or commercial premises will normally be permitted.

9.3.2 The proposal would change the use of a commercial/industrial premises for other commercial/industrial purposes and the principle for this development is therefore considered to be acceptable, subject to the consideration of the matters set out below.

9.4 Impact on character

9.4.1 The proposed development incorporates no physical changes to the existing buildings. The existing buildings are utilitarian in nature and do not, in themselves, make a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the streetscene and character of the local area. However, the structures are relatively low in height and are mainly obscured by the boundary fencing to the main road frontages. The land to the rear has been laid out with hardstanding which is hardly visible from the public highway or nearby public car park due to the boundary fencing. It is considered that the loss of the untidy condition of the vacant land to the rear, and its replacement with hardstanding, is a minor visual improvement to the local area, noting the limited views of it from the public domain.

4 9.4.2 The proposed use of the premises for car repairs and servicing falling within Class B2 (general industrial purposes) in place of Class B1c (light industrial purposes) has some impact on the local environment. However, it is not considered that this change in character, particularly bearing in mind the planning history (set out above) on this site, is significant to warrant the refusal of this application.

9.4.3 There are no objections to the proposal on character or streetscene grounds.

9.5 Impact on residential amenity

9.5.1 The proposal would change the use from light industrial to general industrial use which would have some impact on residential amenity. There are a number of residential properties, in Victoria Avenue in close proximity to the application site, including 9 and 11 Victoria Avenue. Historically the authorised uses on this site included welding which is a B2 use and as such historical precedent carries some weight in the consideration of the application.

9.5.2 The proposed use is likely to increase the noise and disturbance to residential properties over and above the former B1 use of the site. However, limitations on hours of operation from 8am to 6pm. on Mondays to Saturdays (closed on Sundays) and all operations and storage to be undertaken within the existing buildings, and the small scale nature of the provided accommodation could limit the impact of the proposed use on residential amenity. Subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions, the proposed use is considered to be acceptable in residential amenity terms.

9.6 Parking and highway safety

9.6.1 The proposal would provide a parking arrangement of nine spaces. This level of parking would provide an adequate level to meet the Council’s adopted standards. No objections are raised to the proposal on parking grounds.

9.6.2 The existing accesses onto Victoria Avenue and the car park access road would be retained. No access onto A30 London Road is proposed. No objections are raised to the proposal by the County Highway Authority.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, and in terms of its impact on local character, residential amenity and highway safety. This application is recommended for approval.

02 2008/0385 Reg Date 29/04/2008 Mytchett/Deepcut

LOCATION: 105 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU16 6SD PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey detached residential institution (C2) building following demolition of existing cafe (A3). TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Ms Helen Holland & Mrs G Tyler OFFICER: Duncan Carty

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This planning application relates to the erection of a two storey detached building to be used for residential institution purposes (Class C2) following the demolition of a café and associated accommodation.

1.2 The application site falls within the settlement area of Deepcut, on the north west side of Deepcut Bridge Road. The 0.02 ha. site falls within a mixed use area with predominantly commercial development fronting Deepcut Bridge Road and residential properties predominantly to the rear. However, the adjoining property, 107 Deepcut Bridge Road is in residential use.

1.3 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, in terms of its impact on local character, highway safety and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. However, the proposal is unacceptable in terms of its impact on residential amenity. This application is recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The proposed development by reason of its height, depth, mass and layout, including a balcony, would have an overbearing impact and provide a loss of light to No. 105 Deepcut Bridge Road and a loss of privacy to No. 105 Deepcut Bridge Road and No. 6 Woodend Road and lead to substandard living conditions including poor outlook from bedrooms and lack of usable amenity area for future occupants. The proposal is contrary to Policies G4, H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation and notification responses.

3.2 Planning history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Deepcut, on the north west side of Deepcut Bridge Road. The 0.02 ha. site falls within a mixed use area with predominantly commercial development fronting Deepcut Bridge Road and residential properties

6 predominantly to the rear, and beyond. However, the adjoining property to the north east, 107 Deepcut Bridge Road, is in a residential use. There is an industrial (sheet metal fabrication) premises at 99 Deepcut Bridge Road, adjoining the south west flank boundary.

4.2 The application property is a two storey building with a large single storey rear projection (providing an overall building depth of 33 metres) on a long, narrow plot. The café use for the property has ceased and the property remains vacant, and is in a poor condition.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/06/0097 Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing and change of use of ground floor use from cafe/shop to habitable accommodation. Refused in October 2006.

5.2 SU/07/0736 Erection of two storey dwelling house following the demolition of existing semi-detached unit comprising café/shop with residential accommodation above. Refused in November 2007.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This planning application relates to the erection of a two storey detached building to be used for residential institution purposes (Class C2) following the demolition of a café and associated accommodation. The proposal would provide a two storey building with a depth of 27.5 metres, a predominant width of 4 metres and overall (maximum) height of 8 metres and provide 8 bedrooms (and one staff bedroom) to be used for residential institutional purposes.

6.2 The use would provide temporary bed and breakfast emergency “care in the community” accommodation. Communal lounge/dining area, kitchen and office facilities would be provided. A shared access (with 107 Deepcut Bridge Road) to the north east flank boundary would be retained.

6.3 Two parking spaces are to be provided on a forecourt to the front of the premises and a rear garden area of 3.3 metres depth would be provided. A small balcony would be provided to the north flank and rear.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway No objections. Authority

7.2 Head of Planning There are no policy objections or objections on the impact of the Policy proposal on the SPA.

7.3 Natural England No objections are raised on SPA grounds.

7.4 Head of Environment No objections. Services

7 8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report, two representations have been received raising the following objections:

8.1 Loss of privacy [see Paragraph 9.5 below].

8.2 Impact from noise [see Paragraph 9.5 below].

8.3 Impact on fire risk [Officer comment: This is a consideration under the Building Regulations].

8.4 Loss of light [see Paragraph 9.5 below].

8.5 Impact of demolition works on structural safety of adjoining property [Officer comment: This is a consideration under the Building Regulations].

8.6 Inadequate parking provision [see Paragraph 9.6 below].

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Deepcut, as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The relevant policies relating to the above proposal are Policies G1, G4, E1, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Borough Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy SE4, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

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

• The principle of the development;

• The impact of the development on character;

• The impact of the development on residential amenity; and

• The impact of the development on parking and highway safety.

9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 Policy E4 of the Local Plan (as saved) indicates that development including the loss of land used for commercial premises will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the site is unsuitably located. Whilst there is a commercial use of the adjoining site, 99 Deepcut Bridge Road, the remaining site boundaries are with residential properties. The loss of this commercial use, which has remained vacant for about 20 years, is considered to be acceptable in policy terms.

9.3.2 In addition, the refused applications SU/06/0097 and SU/07/0736 (see planning history) also would result in the loss of this commercial use. An objection to this loss was not raised by these applications. The principle for this development is therefore considered to be acceptable, subject to the criteria set out below.

9.4 Impact on character

9.4.1 The proposed development incorporates a replacement building which when viewed from the front elevation would appear similar in height to the existing building. However, when viewed from the rear, the side and rear of the development results in a two storey building running down most of the site. The view of the flank wall of the proposed building would be obscured by adjoining and nearby properties, particularly 107 Deepcut Bridge Road and beyond, and the proposed depth would not be clearly visible in the streetscene. The proposed building would have a limited impact on local character taking into consideration

8 the commercial nature of the local area, the amount of built development surrounding the application site and the poor condition of the existing building. No objections are therefore raised to the proposed building on these grounds.

9.4.2 The proposed use of the premises for Class C2 use could result in the intensification of use of the site which would have some impact on the local environment. However, it is not considered that this change in character is significant to warrant the refusal of this application.

9.4.3 There are no objections to the proposal on character or streetscene grounds.

9.5 Impact on residential amenity

9.5.1 The proposed building would be set 12 metres beyond the main rear wall of 107 Deepcut Bridge Road, and positioned (at two storey level) 1.5 metres from the flank boundary with that property. Also, there are bedroom windows in 107 Deepcut Bridge Road which face this property. Whilst, the current building extends to the same depth, the proposal would replace the existing long single storey rear projection with a two storey form of development, for its whole depth, which would have an overbearing impact on, and substantially reduce light to, this residential property and its rear garden. Bedroom windows proposed in the north flank wall of the proposed development and the flank/rear balcony would increase the overlooking of that property, including directly into the bedrooms of 107 Deepcut Bridge Road. This relationship is considered to be unacceptable.

9.5.2 The proposed building would be set 3.3 metres from the rear boundary with 6 Woodend Road. The rear balcony would face this property. Whilst there is a tree screen at the rear boundary, this screen thins in winter due to leaf fall and an unacceptable level of overlooking of that property would occur. An objection is raised to this proposal on these grounds.

9.5.3 The proposed development would provide an insufficient amount of rear amenity for the future occupants, providing a rear garden area with a depth of 3.3 metres, partly screened by trees and other vegetation to the rear boundary. In addition, all 8 bedrooms for the proposed development would face the flank wall of 107 Deepcut Bridge Road. This is considered to result in poor living conditions for future residents of the proposed development which would be detrimental to their outlook and amenity. An objection is raised on these grounds.

9.5.4 An objection is therefore raised to the proposal on residential amenity grounds.

9.6 Parking and highway safety

9.6.1 The proposal would provide a parking arrangement of two spaces. This level of parking would provide an adequate level to meet the Council’s adopted standards of one space per four bedrooms and the demand would be lower than the former café/residential use. In addition, there is available parking in a nearby public car park. No objections are therefore raised to the proposal on parking grounds.

9.6.2 The existing access onto Deepcut Bridge Road will be used. No objections are raised to the proposal by the County Highway Authority on highway safety grounds. There are therefore no objections to the proposal on parking or highway safety.

9.7 Impact on Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.7.1 The proposed development would provide temporary bed and breakfast emergency “care in the community” accommodation used by local residents. The proposal would not provide permanent residential units of accommodation and would not, in itself, increase the recreational pressure on the SPA. Natural England has raised no objection on SPA

9 grounds. The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the SPA. No objections are raised on these grounds.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, and in terms of its impact on local character, parking and highway safety and the integrity of the SPA. However, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity is considered to be unacceptable. This application is recommended for refusal.

03 2008/0416 Reg Date 04/06/2008 St. Pauls

LOCATION: 53 LONDON ROAD, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 3UG PROPOSAL: Erection of a three storey building to comprise of 12 flats with associated parking for 15 cars and erection of detached cycle and refuse stores following demolition of existing dwelling. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr John Elliott Goldmoss Properties Ltd OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application proposes the erection of a three-storey building to contain 12 flats, comprising No.5 three-bedroom and No.7 two-bedroom units. The front of the site would largely be laid over to car parking to provide 15 spaces and would also include a small detached building for bin and cycle storage. The land to the rear of the building would be landscaped to provide shared amenity space.

1.2 This application is an amendment to a previous scheme which was refused by the Local Planning Authority. The principle amendments from the previous scheme relate to the removal of one unit and alterations to the mix of units and their sizes. Accordingly the accommodation previously included within the roof has been removed and the height of the building has been reduced by approximately 2.1 metres. The width of the building has been reduced by approximately 1.7 metres and its depth reduced by approximately 0.5 metres. There have also been amendments to the layout of the amenity space to the rear and the car parking to the front.

1.3 The main issue to consider is whether the amendments to the scheme overcome the previous reasons for refusals which related to:

• The impact of the proposal on the character and the appearance of the area

• The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

• The impact of the proposal on highway safety and the level of car parking proposed

• The impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests

1.4 This report concludes that the form and the scale of the building, along with its coverage of the plot result in the over development of the site which fails to respect the character of adjoining development. In addition the large unbroken area of car parking to the front of the site results in a harsh residential environment that is dominated by the private car. Furthermore the development proposed would have an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties and fails to provide a sufficient level of amenity space or off street car parking to serve the future occupants of the development. The lack of on site turning area for service vehicles is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA.

11 2.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The development proposed, by virtue of the form and the scale of the building, its coverage over the site and the lack of spacing around the building results in the overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect the spacious character of existing development in the area. Furthermore the car parking layout proposed fails to integrate with the development and would add to the harsh visual appearance of the site to the detriment of the visual amenities and the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G4, UE2, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

2. The development proposed, by virtue of the siting, bulk and massing of the building will give rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the occupants of No.49 and No.57. Moreover the positioning of windows in the east elevation will give rise to overlooking of the amenity space serving No.49. Furthermore the lack of useable amenity space to serve proposed units fails to provide adequate space for the passive recreational requirements of the future occupants of the development. Moreover the level of car parking provided is insufficient to meet the needs of the residents and their visitors which would give rise to inconvenience to the occupants of the development to the detriment of residential amenities. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the transport impacts of the proposed development can be adequately accommodated on the Local Highway Network. There is no provision for service vehicles to enter, turn and leave the site in a forward gear. If permitted the absence of on site turning for service vehicles would result in the drivers of such vehicles having to reverse onto and off the London Road a bust “A” class road thus leading to conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to policy M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

4. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

12 3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The 0.20ha application site is located on the south side of the A30 (London Road) between the junctions with Georgian Close and Gibbet Lane. The site is broadly rectangular in shape and currently comprises a large two-storey detached dwellinghouse. Vehicle access to the site is from the east and links into a small section of driveway shared with No.49 which meets the A30.

4.2 The site adjoins the A30 to the north with residential properties adjoining the site to the east, south and west. The site contains a significant level of mature landscaping which screens the site from most of the adjoining land. The trees which line the front boundary of the site are covered by TPO 7/71. There are significant level changes within the site which generally falls from north to the south.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/2007/0733 Erection of a three storey building with accommodation in the roofspace to form 13 flats with associated parking, detached cycle and refuse store to the front following demolition of dwelling.

The application was REFUSED on 20th November 2007 for the following reasons:

1. The development proposed, by virtue of the form and the scale of the building, its coverage over the site and the lack of spacing around the building, results in the overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect the spacious character of existing development in the area. Furthermore the car parking layout proposed fails to integrate with the development and would add to the harsh visual appearance of the site to the detriment of the visual amenities and the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies G4, UE2, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of the siting, bulk and height of the building, will give rise to an overbearing and un-neighbourly impact on the occupants of No. 49 London Road and No. 57 London Road. Moreover the positioning of windows in the east elevation will give rise to overlooking of the amenity space serving No. 49 London Road. Furthermore the lack of amenity space to serve 11 of the proposed units fails to provide adequate space for the passive recreational requirements of the future occupants. Moreover the level of car parking provided is insufficient to meet the needs of the residents and their visitors which would give rise to inconvenience to the occupants of the development to the detriment of residential amenities. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as

13 saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the transport impacts of the proposed development can be adequately accommodated on the Local Highway Network. There is no provision for service vehicles to enter, turn and leave the site in a forward gear. If permitted the absence of on site turning for service vehicles would result in the drivers of such vehicles having to reverse onto and off the London Road, a busy “A” class road, thus leading to conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to Policy M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

4. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the Planning Authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48(5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 “Biodiversity and Geological Conservation”.

A copy of the previous committee report is attached.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the erection of a three-storey building to contain 12 flats, comprising No.5 three-bedroom and No.7 two-bedroom units at a density of 60 dwellings per hectare. The proposed building is to be sited approximately 2 metres behind the existing forward building line of the dwelling and would have a width of 21.5 metres, leaving a gap of approximately 3 metres to each side boundary. It would have a total depth of approximately 24 metres and a maximum height of approximately 12.1 metres.

6.2 The front of the site, behind the screen of trees, would be largely laid over to car parking to provide 15 spaces to serve the development and would also include a small detached building for bin and cycle storage. The land to the rear of the building would be landscaped to provide a shared amenity space for future occupants of the development. The applicant has indicated that the landscaping currently adjoining the boundaries of the site would be retained and no alterations are proposed to the vehicle access.

6.3 The application is similar in many respects to a previous application submitted under reference SU/2007/0733 which was refused by the Local Planning Authority. The principle amendments from the previous scheme relate to the removal of one unit and alterations to the mix of units and their sizes. Accordingly the accommodation previously included within 14 the roof has been removed and the height of the building has been reduced by approximately 2.1 metres. The width of the building has been reduced by approximately 1.7 metres and its depth reduced by approximately 0.5 metres. There have also been amendments to the layout of the amenity space to the rear and the car parking to the front.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Arboricultural Officer Comment, should permission be granted details of tree and ground protection and an Arboricultural Method Statement should be secured by way of condition.

7.2 Natural England Objection, impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

7.3 County Highway Objection, the proposal lacks on site turning for service vehicles. Authority

7.4 SHBC Project Engineer Comment, should permission be granted details of surface water (Drainage) drainage and specification of soakaways should be secured by way of condition.

7.5 Head of Environmental No objection Services

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report 4 representations have been received which raise the following issues:

8.2 • Highway safety (see para 9.5)

• Insufficient car parking (see para 9.5)

• Overdevelopment (see para 9.3)

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

• Loss of privacy (see para 9.4)

• Overbearing (see para 9.4)

• Noise and disturbance (see attached report)

• Loss of trees (see attached report)

• Impact on protected species (see para 9.6)

8.3 The application has been advertised as a major development in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, as amended.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located in the settlement area of Camberley and is within an Area of Urban Landscape Quality as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The site is 15 also adjacent to the London Road which is designated as a Green Corridor. As such policies G4, G23, G24, UE2, H18, H19, H23, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies SE4, SE6, SE7, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) are relevant to the consideration of this application. The guidance contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’ and ‘Surrey Design’ are also relevant as is the national advice contained in PPS3 and PPS9.

9.2 Given the site is within the settlement area, the principle of residential development is acceptable. It is therefore considered that the main issues to be addressed are:

• The impact of the proposal on the character and the appearance of the area

• The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

• The impact of the proposal on highway safety and the level of car parking proposed

• The impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests

9.3 The impact of the proposal on the character and the appearance of the area

9.3.1 The surrounding area is typified by detached houses set in spacious plots however there are examples of flatted development in the area. The spacing around the existing buildings is a feature of the area, as is the mature landscaping within the plots, and this is recognised by its designation as an area of Urban Landscape Quality. The application site currently respects the character of the area and the mature trees which screen the front boundary currently play an important role in enhancing the landscape character of the London Road which is designated as a Green Corridor.

9.3.2 In assessing the previous application it was considered that the development, by virtue of the form and scale of the building and its site coverage would result in the overdevelopment of the site and that the lack of spacing around the building failed to respect the character of the development in the surrounding area. In addition, it was considered that the development failed to integrate the parking into the scheme and resulted in a harsh residential environment dominated by the private car. The current scheme seeks to overcome this objection and the applicant has accordingly reduced the height of the development as well as its width and depth.

9.3.3 It is however considered that whilst the scale of the building has been reduced, the changes are relatively minor and do not result in a building which would respect the character of the surrounding development. The depth of the building has been reduced by just 0.5 metres and the width by just 1.7 metres, from what would be a substantial building. As such the building now proposed continues to lack the spacing around the building which is a feature of development in the area. The parking area to the front remains largely unchanged save for the addition of a pergola structure over some of the car parking spaces to the front of the building. It is not considered that the erection of a pergola would integrate the parking into the development and as such the area to the front of the site would remain a harsh environment dominated by the private car.

9.3.6 It is therefore again considered that the development proposed, by virtue of the form and scale of the building and its coverage of the site would result in the overdevelopment of the site and that the lack of spacing around the building fails to respect the character of the development in the surrounding area. In addition the development fails to integrate the parking area into the scheme and results in a harsh residential environment dominated by the private car. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G4, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and the guidance contained in PPS3.

16 9.4 The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

9.4.1 To the east the application sites adjoins No.49, a relatively large building that has been converted to flats. To the west the application site adjoins No.55 and No.57, two dwellings created by the subdivision of the property originally known as Beachhursrt. There are also residential properties adjoining the site to the south.

9.4.2 It was previously considered that the development proposed would result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development when viewed from the shared amenity space of No.49 and from windows within these flats. It was also considered that the habitable windows within the development will significantly increase the level of overlooking of the amenity space of No.49, to the detriment of the privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants. It was also considered that the building proposed would be clearly visible from the main area of amenity space serving No.57 and that the bulk, siting and height of the building proposed would give rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development when viewed from this property and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupants of this property currently enjoy.

9.4.3 It is considered that whilst the height of the building has been reduced the minor changes to the footprint do little to improve the building relationships with the residential properties which adjoin the site to the sides. Moreover the development still includes windows to habitable rooms in the side elevation facing No.49. It is therefore again considered that the development proposed would be detrimental to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residents.

9.4.4 Objection was also previously raised as the development failed to provide a satisfactory level of amenities for the future occupants of the development in that a number of the units would not be served by useable amenity space. The development now provides for an area of shared amenity space however it is considered that the amenity space to be provided, which would remain largely covered with vegetation and subject to extreme level changes, would be largely unusable and insufficient to meet the future needs of the occupants of the development, which are likely to be used for family occupation.

9.4.5 In light of the above it is again considered that the development proposed would be detrimental to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residents and fails to provide a satisfactory level of amenities for the future occupants of the development. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and the guidance contained in PPS3.

9.5 The impact of the proposal on highway safety and the level of car parking proposed

9.5.1 The development would be served from the existing access point to the site from London Road which is shared with No.49 and there have been no significant changes to the parking layout or the access agreements proposed in the previous scheme. The County Highway Authority again raise no objection to the increased use of this access however it continues to object to the lack of on an on site turning area for larger service vehicles such as used for refuse collection. Accordingly the County Highway Authority again advise that the proposal would result in drivers of larger vehicles having to reverse onto or off the London Road resulting in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and that the application should be refused on these grounds.

9.5.3 The previous application provided a ratio of 1.15 spaces per unit and it was previously considered that the level of parking made insufficient provision for two car families or the parking of visitors to the development. Given no overspill parking is possible on the adjoining highway, the lack of car parking space would have caused inconvenience to the

17 future occupants of the development to the detriment of the amenities they may reasonable expect to enjoy.

9.5.4 The application again proposes 15 spaces however as the number of units has been reduced, this now equates to a ratio of 1.25 spaces per unit. It is however again considered that, given the development includes three and two-bedroom units, there is a likelihood that they are to be occupied by families and there is likely to be a significant proportion of two car households. It is therefore again considered that the development makes insufficient provision for two car families or the parking of visitors to the development and given no overspill parking is possible on the adjoining highway, the lack of car parking space would cause inconvenience to the future occupants of the development to the detriment of the amenities they may reasonable expect to enjoy.

9.6 The impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests

9.6.1 The application site is located within 1km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the consultation response from Natural England advises that the proposed development, in combination with other development, may have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the protected site. This impact can arise through increased use of the site for dog walking and other general recreational uses, leading to a deterioration of the habitat.

9.6.2 The applicant has advised that a covenant would be included within the deeds of the property to prevent the future occupants keeping pets however it is not considered that a restriction on keeping pets is enforceable. Notwithstanding this, the harm arising from development is not restricted to dog walking and also arises from general recreational use. The applicant has indicated that they are prepared to make a contribution to SANGS within the borough, however given the number of units proposed the development can not be mitigated through the Interim Avoidance Strategy.

9.6.3 Following an appropriate assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, it can not be shown that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy SE7 of the Structure Plan and the national guidance contained in PPS9.

9.6.4 It was previously recommended that should permission be granted a condition should be attached to ensure the site is surveyed for bats prior to the commencement of development. It is again considered that this is appropriate given the nature of the building and the number of trees on the site.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The form and the scale of the building, along with its coverage of the plot result in the over development of the site and fail to respect the character of adjoining development. In addition the large unbroken area of car parking to the front of the site results in a harsh residential environment that is dominated by the private car. Furthermore the development proposed would have an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties and fails to provide a sufficient level of amenity space or off street car parking to serve the future occupants of the development. The lack of on site turning area for service vehicles is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and it has not been demonstrated that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA.

18 PREVIOUS REPORT FOR 07/0733

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The 0.20ha application site is located on the south side of the A30 (London Road) between the junctions with Georgian Close and Gibbet Lane. The site is broadly rectangular in shape and currently comprises a large two-storey detached dwellinghouse. Vehicle access to the site is from the east and links into a small section of driveway shared with No.49 which meets the A30. The site adjoins residential properties to the east, south and west. There are significant level changes within the site which contains extensive mature landscaping.

1.2 The full application proposes the erection of a three-storey building with accommodation in the roof space to contain 13 flats, comprising No.8 three-bedroom and No.5 two-bedroom units. The front of the site will be largely laid over to car parking to provide 15 spaces to serve the development and will also include a small detached building for bin and cycle storage. The useable area to the rear of the site will be landscaped to provide private amenity space for the rear facing ground floor units.

1.3 The form and the scale of the building, along with its coverage of the plot result in the overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect the character of adjoining development. In addition the large unbroken area of car parking to the front of the site results in a harsh residential environment that is dominated by the private car and gives priority to the car user. The development proposed would also have an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties and fails to provide a sufficient level of amenity space or off street car parking to serve the future occupants of the development. Furthermore the lack of on site turning area for service vehicles is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and it has not been demonstrated that the development, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Refuse for the following reasons: 1. The development proposed, by virtue of the form and the scale of the building, its coverage over the site and the lack of spacing around the building results in the overdevelopment of the site which fails to respect the spacious character of existing development in the area. Furthermore the car parking layout proposed fails to integrate with the development and would add to the harsh visual appearance of the site to the detriment of the visual amenities and the character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G4, UE2, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

2. The development proposed, by virtue of the siting, bulk and height of the building will give rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on the occupants of No.49 and No.57. Moreover the positioning of windows in the east elevation will give rise to overlooking of the amenity space serving No.49. Furthermore the lack of amenity space to serve 11 of the proposed units fails to provide adequate space for the passive recreational requirements of the future occupants. Moreover the level of car parking provided is insufficient to meet the needs of the residents and their visitors which would give rise to inconvenience to the occupants of the development to the detriment of residential amenities. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in 19 Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and PPS3.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the transport impacts of the proposed development can be adequately accommodated on the Local Highway Network. There is no provision for service vehicles to enter, turn and leave the site in a forward gear. If permitted the absence of on site turning for service vehicles would result in the drivers of such vehicles having to reverse onto and off the London Road a busy “A” class road thus leading to conditions prejudicial to highway safety contrary to policy M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 There is no planning history relevant to the current proposal.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the erection of a three-storey building with accommodation in the roof space to contain 13 flats, comprising No.8 three-bedroom and No.5 two-bedroom 20 units at a density of 65 dwellings per hectare. The proposed building is to be sited approximately 2 metres behind the existing forward building line of the dwelling and will have a width of 23 metres, leaving a gap of 2 metres to each side boundary. It will have a total depth of approximately 24 metres and a maximum height of approximately 14.5 metres.

6.2 The front of the site behind the frontage of trees will be largely laid over to car parking to provide 15 spaces to serve the development and will also include a small detached building for bin and cycle storage. The useable area to the rear of the site will be landscaped to provide private amenity space for the rear facing ground floor units. The applicant has indicated that the landscaping currently adjoining the boundaries of the site will be retained and no alterations are proposed to the vehicle access.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Arboricultural Officer Comment, should permission be granted details of tree and ground protection and an Arboricultural Method Statement should be secured by way of condition.

7.2 Natural England Objection, impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

7.3 County Highway Objection, the proposal lacks on site turning for service vehicles. Authority

7.4 SHBC Project No objection Engineer (Drainage)

7.5 Head of Environmental No objection Services

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of preparation of this report 9 representations have been received which raise the following main issues:

8.2 4. Highway safety (see para 9.5)

5. Insufficient car parking (see para 9.5)

6. Loss of trees (see para 9.3)

7. Loss of privacy (see para 9.4)

8. Overbearing (see para 9.4)

9. Noise and disturbance (see para 9.4)

10. Impact on character of the area (see para 9.3)

11. Overdevelopment (see para 9.3)

12. Nature conservation (see para 9.6)

21 8.3 The application has been advertised as a major development in accordance with the requirements of Article 8 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, as amended.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located in the settlement area of Camberley and is within an Area of Urban Landscape Quality as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The site is also adjacent to the London Road which is designated as a Green Corridor. As such policies G4, G23, G24, UE2, H18, H19, H23, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies SE4, SE6, SE7, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) are relevant to the consideration of this application. The guidance contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’ and ‘Surrey Design’ are also relevant as is the national advice contained in PPS3 and PPS9.

9.2 Given the site is within the settlement area, the principle of residential development is acceptable. It is therefore considered that the main issues to be addressed are:

13. The impact of the proposal on the character and the appearance of the area

14. The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

15. The impact of the proposal on highway safety and the level of car parking proposed

16. The impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests

9.3 The impact of the proposal on the character and the appearance of the area

9.3.1 The surrounding area is typified by detached houses set in spacious plots however there are examples of flatted development in the area. The spacing around the existing buildings is a feature of the area as is the mature landscaping within the plots and this is recognised by its designation as an area of Urban Landscape Quality. The application site currently respects the character of the area and the mature trees which screen the front boundary currently play an important role in enhancing the landscape character of the London Road which is designated as a Green Corridor.

9.3.2 The application proposes the erection of a large detached building to comprise 13 flats and given the mix of property types in the surrounding area no objection is raised to the principle of a flatted development on this site. The building proposed would have a width of approximately 23 metres, a depth of approximately 24 metres and a height of approximately 14.5 metres. It is considered that the form and the scale of the proposed building and the coverage of the built form over the site results in the overdevelopment of the site and fails to respect the character of existing development in the area which is derived from the generous spacing and landscaping around the buildings. As such the proposed development will detract from the character of the area to which the application currently positively contributes.

9.3.3 The application also proposes the creation of a hard surfaced area to the front of the site to provide 15 car parking spaces to serve the future occupants of the development. The parking is to be arranged in a largely unbroken block of hard surfacing and there is to be little landscaping within the car parking area. It is considered that the layout is of poor design wherein the parking lacks integration and would give rise to a residential environment that would be dominated by the parked car. This would add to the harsh appearance of the development and contribute to its detrimental impact on the character of the area.

22 9.3.4 The application includes the removal of some trees within the site and the clearing of some other assorted vegetation. The trees to be removed are of low quality and do not currently make a significant positive contribution to the character of the area. The significant trees on the frontage are to be retained and as such the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the landscape character of the London Road Green Corridor. The Councils Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the proposed scheme subject to the imposition of conditions to secure tree and ground protection and the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement prior to the commencement of development.

9.3.5 It is therefore considered that the development proposed, by virtue of the form and scale of the building and its site coverage would result in the overdevelopment of the site and that the lack of spacing around the building fails to respect the character of the development in the surrounding area. In addition the development fails to integrate the parking into the scheme and results in a harsh residential environment dominated by the private car. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G4, H18 and H19 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and the guidance contained in PPS3.

9.4 The impact of the proposal on residential amenities

9.4.1 To the east the application sites adjoins No.49, a relatively large building that has been converted to flats. The proposed development will be set in by approximately 2 metres from the common boundary with this property which is currently marked by a high evergreen hedge and other assorted vegetation. The forward section of the proposed building would however be largely visible from an area of shared amenity space serving No.49 which adjoins the site, particularly in winter when the deciduous vegetation is not in leaf. It is also noted that this section of the building will contain windows over three floors which serve kitchens and living rooms. The hedge could if retained, partially screen the rear section of the development from this area of amenity space. However the hedge would require considerable thinning back to accommodate the development and as such its value as a screen would be reduced and its retention is unlikely to be possible. It is considered that the development proposed will result in an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development when viewed from the shared amenity space of No.49 and from windows within these flats. In addition the habitable windows within the development will significantly increase the level of overlooking to the amenity space of No.49, to the detriment of the privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants.

9.4.2 To the west the application site adjoins No.55 and No.57, two dwellings created by the subdivision of the property originally known as Beechurst. The northern part of this building forms No.55. The development proposed will be largely screened from this property by the vegetation on the common boundary and it is not considered that the development will have a material impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of this property.

9.4.3 The southern part of the building forms No.57 and the southern section of the site is used as amenity space serving this property. In this location the screening is less dense and there is a higher proportion of deciduous vegetation. As a result the building proposed will be clearly visible from the main area of amenity space serving No.57 which is also at a lower level than the application site. It is therefore considered that the bulk, siting and height of the building proposed would give rise to an overbearing and unneighbourly form of development when viewed from this property and would be detrimental to the amenities that the occupants of this property currently enjoy.

9.4.4 There are no residential properties to the north of the site and although there are properties to the south, it is not considered that the development would have a material impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of these properties given the intervening distances and the level of screening present. The development will result in a more intensive use of the 23 site and in particular an increase in vehicle movements and activity with the car parking area provided. It is however not considered that the introduction of the development would give rise to a level of noise and disturbance such that it would prejudice the residential amenities enjoyed by the surrounding properties.

9.4.5 The development proposed includes the provision of private areas of amenity space to serve the two ground floor rear facing units however the remainder of the site is to be left unimproved and overgrown and given the significant level changes, could not easily be used as private or shared amenity space. As a result 11 of the units proposed, which include two and three-bedroom units capable of family occupation, would have no access to any form of amenity space. It is therefore considered that the proposal fails to provide a residential environment and level of amenity space adequate to serve the needs of all future occupants of the development.

9.4.6 The development proposed is therefore considered to be detrimental to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residents and fails to provide a satisfactory level of amenities for the future occupants of the development. As such the proposal is contrary to policies H18 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the advice contained in Surrey Heaths SPG ‘Residential Development in Settlement Areas’, ‘Surrey Design’ and the guidance contained in PPS3.

9.5 The impact of the proposal on highway safety and the level of car parking proposed

9.5.1 The development would be served from the existing access point to the site from London Road which is shared with No.49. The County Highway Authority raise no objection to the increased use of this access which has suitable visibility in both directions along the carriageway. The hard surfacing area on site is however not of sufficient size to accommodate the turning of larger service vehicles such as used for refuse collection. Accordingly the County Highway Authority advise that the proposal would result in drivers of larger vehicles having to reverse onto or off the London Road resulting in conditions prejudicial to highway safety. The County Highway Authority therefore recommends that this application be refused.

9.5.2 The application includes the provision of a car parking area to the front of the proposed building which would provide 15 car parking spaces at a ratio of 1.15 spaces per unit. The applicant states that this is an appropriate level of car parking given the site is within walking and cycling distance of Camberley Town Centre. It is however considered that given the site is over 1km from Camberley Town Centre and given the development includes two and three bedroom units capable of family occupation, it is likely that a proportion of the units would be occupied by households with more than one car. The level of parking proposed makes insufficient provision for two car families or the parking of visitors to the development and given no overspill parking is possible on the adjoining highway, the lack of car parking space would cause inconvenience to the future occupants of the development to the detriment of the amenities they may reasonable expect to enjoy.

9.6 The impact of the proposal on nature conservation interests

9.6.1 Given the nature of the building and the level of trees on this site it is possible that there may be bats on the site. It is therefore considered that should planning permission be granted a condition should be attached to ensure the site is surveyed for bats prior to the commencement of development.

9.6.2 The application site is located within 1km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the consultation response from Natural England advises that the proposed development, in combination with other development, may have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the protected site. This impact can arise through increased use of the site for dog walking and other general recreational uses, leading to a deterioration of the habitat. 24 9.6.3 Following an appropriate assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, it can not be shown that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy SE7 of the Structure Plan and the national guidance contained in PPS9.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The form and the scale of the building, along with its coverage of the plot result in the over development of the site and fail to respect the character of adjoining development. In addition the large unbroken area of car parking to the front of the site results in a harsh residential environment that is dominated by the private car. Furthermore the development proposed would have an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties and fails to provide a sufficient level of amenity space or off street car parking to serve the future occupants of the development. The lack of on site turning area for service vehicles is likely to result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and it has not been demonstrated that the development, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity of the SPA.

04 2008/0436 Reg Date 21/04/2008 Parkside

LOCATION: AMBER LODGE, SPRINGFIELD ROAD, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 1AE PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 dwellings and associated parking following demolition of existing dwelling. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Churchill Homes Ltd OFFICER: Duncan Carty

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This planning application relates to the erection of two dwellings with associated garaging, parking and accesses following the demolition of the existing dwelling. This is a revision to the refused scheme SU/05/1176, on the grounds of impact on character and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) subsequently dismissed on appeal on character grounds only.

1.2 An Interim Avoidance Strategy has now been adopted by this Council wherein small sites such as this can provide a financial contribution to mitigate against the harmful impacts on the SPA. A unilateral obligation has been offered by the applicant to secure the necessary contribution as set out in the Avoidance Strategy. Notwithstanding the Inspector’s decision in relation to SPA (that the appeal proposal had no impact on the SPA) for the appeal scheme, this reason for refusal has been overcome.

1.3 The previous application SU/05/1176 was considered to be acceptable on residential amenity and highway safety grounds. The current proposal seeks alterations to this proposal which overcome the grounds for refusal on character grounds, without materially further impacting on residential amenity or highway safety. The current application proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable.

1.4 The recommendation is to defer the determination of the application to allow the completion of a legal undertaking, following which the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions set out below. If, however, the agreement is not completed within three months of the date of this Committee, then the application be refused on the grounds that the applicant has not provided the necessary mitigation to divert recreational activity from the SPA.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION Recommendation 1: DEFER and delegate and subject to the receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure mitigation in accordance with the Council’s adopted Special Protection Area Interim Avoidance Strategy dated 29th August 2008, at no cost to the Council, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

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

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

26 2. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to include, brick, tile, guttering and fenestration. Once approved the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies H17 House Extensions and H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

3. Details of reinstatement of the land if demolition takes place and building works do not commence within 6 months of the date of this permission are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the agreed reinstatement works are to be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, within an agreed time scale.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4. No additional windows shall be created in the first floor side elevation of Plot 1 facing Springfield House and the first floor side elevation of Plot 2 facing Springfield Lodge without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

5. Before first occupation of the development hereby approved the first floor bathroom and en-suite windows in the flank elevations of Plots 1 and 2 shall be completed in obscure glazing and any opening shall be at high level only (greater than 1.7m above finished floor level) and retained as such at all times unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

6. Before works commence on site details of the proposed finished ground floor slab levels of all building(s) and the finished ground levels of the site including roads, private drives, etc. in relation to the existing ground levels of the site and adjoining land, (measured from a recognised datum point) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be built in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual and residential amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers and the occupiers of the buildings hereby approved in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas.

7. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces, walls,

27 fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

8. No on-site burning of any material shall take place during the implementation of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

. Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, pattern and character of surrounding development and respects the character of the area and quality of the street scene.

2. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties such as to justify refusing the application.

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

1. Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy G1: Making the Best Use of Urban Land, Policy G4: Design Principles, Policy H18: Residential Development in Settlement Areas, Policy M7: Off Street Car Parking and Policy M8: Highway Design Standards.

2. Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED Policy L02: Managing Urban Areas, Policy SE4: Design and the Quality of Development, Policy DN2: Movement Implications of Development and Policy DN3: Parking Provision.

3. Residential Development in Settlement Areas. Development Control Guidelines. Supplementary Planning Guidance 2002.

4. PPS 3 Housing.

5. PPG 13 Transport.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

3. Party Walls (etc) Act 1996 DE3

28 Recommendation 2: In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not complete within three months of the date of this Committee, this Authority will undertake an Appropriate Assessment and if the Authority is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) it shall be REFUSED for the following reason:

1. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations.

3.2 Planning history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Camberley, on the south side of Springfield Road (a narrow, unmade private road), close to the road junction with Rawdon Rise. The surrounding properties are predominantly detached dwellings in large plots. To the west of the application site is the large detached property, Springfield House. This property is at a lower level than the application site. To the east of the application site is an access road, serving two properties to the rear, with a large residential property, Springfield House, beyond. One of these properties to the rear, Little Lullaway, adjoins the rear site boundary but the property has a large front garden and the application dwelling is hardly visible from that property.

4.2 The application property is a large detached dwelling, which has been extended over time. The property sits within a rectangular plot of 0.15 hectares. The property has a large front garden and a slightly smaller rear garden. Currently there are two access points from Springfield Road on to the site and a detached flat roof double garage to the side of the application property. The application site slopes up away from Springfield Road and the rear garden is on a particularly sharp incline. The application site also slopes from east to west (with east being the highest point). Along the front boundary there is a mature hedge. The remaining boundaries are well defined with fencing with some tree screening in places.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 FRI/70/0100 Erection of garage extension and minor alterations. Approved.

29 5.2 FRI/71/0087 Erection of porch extension. Approved.

5.3 SU/78/0576 Erection of two storey rear extension. Approved.

5.4 SU/05/1176 Erection of 2 no. two storey dwelling houses with accommodation in the roof and associated parking following the demolition of the existing dwelling. Refused permission in September 2006 and appeal dismissed in March 2007. A copy of the Appeal Decision is attached for information at Annexe A.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This planning application relates to the erection of two dwellings with associated garaging, parking and accesses following the demolition of the existing dwelling. The proposal would provide 2 no. five bed two storey dwellings with accommodation in the roof and each would have an integral double garage to the front with accommodation over, and a front dormer in the main (hipped) roof.

6.2 The proposed dwellings are similar in size and design but are handed. The properties would be centrally located on the site with fencing and hedging dividing the plots. There would be separate drives (using the existing accesses) to each proposed dwelling and rear gardens of approximately 20 metre depth would be provided.

6.3 The proposed dwellings would have a maximum ridge height of 8.5 metres reducing to 5 metres at the eaves with forward projections, containing the garage accommodation, to a maximum height of 7 metres reducing to 3.3 metres at the eaves.

6.4 The current proposal seeks to overcome the reason for the dismissal of the appeal SU/05/1176 in relation to the impact of that proposal on the character of the area. In comparing the current proposal with the appeal scheme, the gaps between the proposed dwellings to the west flank boundary have increased from 2 metres to 4 metres and 3 metres, respectively with a decrease in the gap from 3.6 metres to 2.7 metres to the east flank boundary. The predominant width of each of the proposed dwellings has been reduced from approximately 11 to 10 metres. The main roof form has been reduced from half to full hips and the forward garage projection has been set back 3.2 metres further for Plot 1 (the east plot).

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County No objections. Highway Authority

7.2 Natural England No objections.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report, ten representations have been received (from seven parties) which raise the following objections:

8.1 Impact construction work would have on deteriorating road surface [Officer comment: this is not a planning matter].

8.2 Impact on property value [Officer comment: this is not a planning matter].

30 8.3 Removal of trees before application submission. [Officer opinion: there are no Tree Preservation Orders in place for the application property and their removal did not require formal consent from the Local Planning Authority].

8.4 Cramped appearance of proposal [See Paragraph 9.3 below].

8.5 Three storey development would be out of character [See Paragraph 9.3 below].

8.6 Impact on drainage system and flooding [Officer opinion: the application site is not within an area of poor drainage or an area liable to flooding. Controls on drainage would therefore be considered under the Building Regulations].

8.7 Highway safety from increased use of road (and substandard road junctions) [See Paragraph 9.5 below].

8.8 Precedent [Officer comment: this is not a reason to refuse this application].

8.9 Incorrect facts in design and access statement and SPA assessment.

8.10 Loss of privacy [See Paragraph 9.4 below].

8.11 Construction beyond the building line [See Paragraph 9.3 below].

8.12 Overbearing impact and loss of light [See Paragraph 9.4 below].

8.13 Scheme is hardly different to appeal scheme [See Paragraph 6.3 above].

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site falls within the settlement area of Camberley, as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The relevant policies relating to the above proposal are Policies G1, G4, G24, H18, H23, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Borough Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy DN2, DN3 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved.

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

• The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area;

• The impact of the development on residential amenities;

• The impact of the development on parking and highway safety; and

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

9.3 Impact on character and appearance of the area

9.3.1 Policy H18 of the Local Plan (as saved) requires new development to respect the form and pattern of existing development in the surrounding area. The area is characterised by substantial two storey dwellings on large plots. Most properties in Springfield Road have traditional front gardens with long rear gardens. However, those closest to the application site including the adjoining property, Springfield Lodge, and Springfield House have shorter rear gardens having comparable plot sizes with the application site. The surrounding properties have a particular spaciousness about them with clear gaps between dwellings. Having regard to the form and pattern of development in Springfield Road, its sylvan character and the unmade narrow road, the area has a particular character which creates a sense of place and results in an attractive environment.

31 9.3.2 The proposal involves the sub-division of the plot into two and the demolition of the existing house. The existing house has no particular architectural merit and therefore no objection is raised to its loss. The majority of the landscaping to the front boundary would be retained, limiting the impact of the driveways and associated turning areas on the streetscene.

9.3.3 The Inspector in relation to the appeal SU/05/1176 indicates: “The two houses would be set some 2 metres apart and would spread across most of the width of the site, to within 2 metres of the boundary on one side and 2/3 metres on the other side. This would be very much out of character with the much more spacious setting of other dwellings in the area Springfield Road falls away…, particularly when approached from south-east to north west, the existing house stands above the road. Although the existing open frontage vegetation would be retained, the proposed houses would be very much noticeably open to view standing above the road in this way, and in my view the proximity of the houses to each other and the site boundaries would be harmful to the character of the area, and be a noticeably cramped form of development…”

The current proposal increases the separation of the proposed houses and provides a narrower form of development. This reduction in building size, including the reduced roof mass, the reduction in the prominence of the forward garage projection of Plot 1 and the increased separation between the dwellings and to the west flank boundary improves the relationship of the proposal with its surroundings. The proposal also provides a good quality design including traditional features such as corbelling and tile hanging. It is considered that the current proposal overcomes the objections raised by the Inspector to the appeal scheme and the current proposal is considered to be acceptable on these grounds. 9.3.4 No objections are therefore raised to the proposal on character or streetscene grounds.

9.4 Impact on residential amenities

9.4.1 Springfield Lodge lies to the west of the application site. The existing house and Springfield Lodge while separated by a narrow gap at grounds floor level have a greater separation at first floor level, which is a characteristic of the area. The proposal would result in a substantial two storey form being built close to the flank boundary with that property. However, no objections were raised to the appeal scheme on the impact of the proposal on this property. The current proposal would be built slightly closer to that property but will provide a reduction in the roof mass, in closer proximity to the mutual flank boundary with this property. In addition, there are no principle windows in this property which faces the application site. No objections are therefore raised to the current proposal on its impact on this property.

9.4.2 Springfield House lies to the east of the application site, beyond an access road (for properties to the rear). The proposal would also result in a larger two storey form being built close to the flank boundary nearest to this property than the existing property. However, no objections were raised to the appeal scheme on the impact of the proposal on this property. The current proposal would be set further back on the site but this relationship with Springfield House, bearing in mind the level of separation to this property and the lack of principle windows in the flank elevation of that property facing the application site, would not be sufficiently different to the Appeal scheme to warrant the refusal of this application.

9.4.3 The separation distances and topography of the application site and surrounding land would limit the impact of the proposed development on other nearby and adjoining residential properties. Little Lullaway, to the rear, is set back some distance and on higher land than the application property and there remains good separation to the front of the site. In addition, no objections were raised to the appeal scheme on the impact of the proposal on any other adjoining or nearby property.

9.4.4 No objections are therefore raised on residential amenity.

32 9.5 Parking and highway safety

9.5.1 The proposal would provide two garage spaces and further parking available on the front drives for each proposed dwelling. This level of parking is greater than would normally be applied under adopted standards. However, the location is fairly unsustainable, being some distance form a bus route or railway station. As such no objections are raised to the proposal level of parking.

9.5.2 The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal on highway safety grounds. It is considered that the intensification of use of the site and resulting increase in traffic generated in respect of the impact on highway safety would be limited. In addition, no reason for refusal was raised on these grounds for the Appeal scheme SU/05/1176. No objections are therefore raised on highway safety grounds.

9.6 Impact on Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.6.1 The Council has adopted an Interim Avoidance Strategy in August 2008. This relates to small dwelling sites of less than 10 dwellings (net) and allows financial contributions to be made towards SANGS, monitoring and access management measures, as mitigation towards the impacts of new development on the SPA. A new SANGS has been identified at Chobham Place Woods which will help absorb additional recreational pressure in the Borough and divert pressure away from the SPA.

9.6.2 The Inspector for the appeal scheme SU/05/1176, against the objection from Natural England and this Authority, indicated that the possible impact of the proposal from one additional dwelling need not be a reason for permission to be withheld. This Appeal decision would normally be a material consideration for this application. The applicant has, however, agreed to make financial contribution in accordance with the Strategy and a draft unilateral obligation is to be submitted. It is not necessary for an Appropriate Assessment to be completed where new development for small sites is able to mitigate in accordance with the Interim Avoidance Strategy.

9.6.3 Subject to the completion of the unilateral undertaking, the impact of the proposal on the SPA is considered to be acceptable.

05 2008/0577 Reg Date 13/08/2008 Watchetts

LOCATION: 9-11 KROONER ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2QP PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of 2 two storey buildings comprising of 12 one bedroom flats with associated access and parking. Appearance and landscaping to be considered. (Revised submission request rec'd 13/8/08 for Outline to consider LAYOUT ONLY) TYPE: Outline APPLICANT: Mr J Goss OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This is an outline planning application to erect two, two storey blocks of 12 one bedroom flats (linked at first floor level) with accommodation in the roof space, following the demolition of 9 and 11 Krooner Road Camberley. Approval is sought at this stage for layout only with all other matters reserved.

1.2 The main planning issues to be addressed in assessing the merits of this proposal are:

• the impact of the proposal on the character of the area;

• the impact of the proposal on residential amenity;

• parking and access; and

• the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

1.3 Overall the layout and indicative scale of the development is considered to be out of keeping with the pattern and form of development within Krooner Road. On this basis the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings. Further, no mitigation has been provided for the SPA and therefore the proposal in combination with other developments would be likely to have a significant detrimental effect on the SPA. Subsequently the application is recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The layout and density of the proposed two storey block (with accommodation in the roof space) of twelve one bedroom flats, would result in an over intensive use and overdevelopment of the site that would appear visually obtrusive within the street scene and out of character with the two storey height of the existing street scape contrary to Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy G1: Making the Best Use of Urban Land, Policy G4: Design Principles and Policy H18: Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED Policy L02: Managing Urban Areas and Policy SE4: Design and the Quality of Development.

2. The development, by reason of the layout and accommodation in the roof space, would give rise to an un-neighbourly form of development that would be unacceptably harmful to the residential amenities of future occupants and 34 adjoining neighbours, by way of overlooking, loss of privacy, overbearing effect, overshadowing and loss of outlook, contrary to Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy G4: Design Principles and Policy H18: Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED Policy SE4: Design and the Quality of Development.

3. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

3.2 Relevant planning history

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site is made up of the sites currently occupied by No's: 9 and 11 Krooner Road, which are located within the built-up area of Camberley. Krooner Road is a short cul-de-sac of 12 1930's two storey, detached and semi-detached houses with access onto Frimley Road; a local distributor and bus route. The land behind 5-11 Krooner Road is presently an area of open land, which is largely overgrown. Leading to this open area is a private unmade road `Hunt Lane`, which serves a number of nearby industrial and commercial premises and the rear of shops along Frimley Road.

4.2 Immediately west of the site is the Krooner Park football ground.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/79/1003 Outline application to erect a factory in the rear garden of 9-11 Krooner Road was refused 12/11/79.

5.2 SU/89/0311 Outline application to erect a detached house and garage in rear garden of 11 Krooner Road was refused 25/05/89.

5.3 SU/90/0681 Outline application to erect a detached house and garage in the rear garden of 11 Krooner Road was refused 14/09/90.

5.4 SU/93/0143 Full application to erect a 2 storey side and rear extension to form 4 x 1-bed flats with car parking at 11 Krooner Road was refused 11/05/93.

35 5.5 SU/93/0656 Full application to erect a 2 storey rear extension to form 4 x 1 bed flats with car parking at 11 Krooner Road was refused 11/11/93.

5.4 SU/96/1026 Full application to erect a garage and workshop in the rear garden. of 11 Krooner Road was approved 29/04/97. This development was implemented.

5.5 SU/06/0354 Outline application for the erection of four 3 bedroom terraced houses, with associated parking and access onto Hunt Lane (siting, design, external appearance and means of access to be considered). Refused 10/01/07. Appeal Dismissed - 25/10/07. A copy of the appeal decision is attached at Annexe B.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application seeks outline consent, considering layout only, for two, two storey blocks of 12 one bedroom flats with accommodation in the roof space. All other matters are reserved.

6.2 It is proposed to demolish the current properties 9 and 11 Krooner Road and replace them with the two blocks of flats that are shown indicatively to be linked at first floor level, providing a car port at ground floor level to enable 16 vehicles to park at the rear of the site.

6.3 Two areas approximately 88 square metres (either side of the access road at the rear) would be provided for private amenity space, approximately 176 square metres of usable amenity space in total for the occupants of the flats. The bin store for the flats is shown in the corner of one of the grassed amenity areas. It is proposed to provide hard landscaping to the front of each block each with an area of some 40 square metres.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County At the time of preparation of this report no objection had been Highway Authority raised by County Highways, however further information from County has been sought and Members will be updated orally on any further representations received.

7.2 Head of Environmental No objection: Bin store area shown. New refuse contract proposes Services that residents will need to place bins at the edge of the road.

7.3 Natural England Recommends refusal on the grounds that the site is within 1 - 2km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) classified in March 2005, and that the proposed increase in the number of dwellings, in combination with other dwellings proposed near to the SPA, would be likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, and contribute to a deterioration of the quality of habitat and increased disturbance to the species of birds for which the SPA is classified.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report 6 letters of objection and 1 petition had been received which raise the following issues:

36 8.1 • Overdevelopment (para.9.2)

• Out of keeping with the existing development of Krooner Road (para.9.2)

• The parking of vehicles to the rear of the site will impact on a health issue of a neighbouring occupier (par 9.3)

• Loss of privacy (para.9.3)

• Loss of enjoyment of existing private rear garden (para.9.3)

• Loss of light (para.9.3)

• Increase in traffic movement which would pose a danger to existing highway users, particularly at the junction of Krooner Road and Frimley Road (para.9.4)

• Increase pressure for on street parking (para.9.4)

• Cars already obstruct the footpath, which force children and the disabled into the road (para.9.4)

• Emergency service vehicles will have difficulty accessing Krooner Road due to the increased parking on street that will be attributed by the development (obstruction to roads is a legal matter and not a material planning consideration)

• On checking the plans notice was served at Krooner Road, Frimley not Krooner Road, Camberley to which this application relates, the application must therefore be void. (the authority is satisfied that the applicant has served notice on the owner of the property).

• Drainage problems with regard to the age of the sewers and number of flats proposed (the applicant has a right to use the main sewers)

• Refuse collection vehicle will not be able to gain access between the two blocks of flats (Environmental Services has stated that bins would need to be left at the edge of the road, a refuse vehicle would not therefore have to enter the site)

• Overlooking of football field will affect the commercial interest of the club with regard to the fact that people have to pay to watch matches (not a material planning consideration)

• Building damage from footballs could increase as a result of the scale of the development which the football club does not have the resources to protect against (not a material planning consideration)

• The current flood lighting may cause disturbance to future occupants and the club does not have the money available to improve the existing flood lighting to avoid this (any future occupant would need to take account of the football ground which already exists)

• The flats, if approved, may prevent the club from developing its site in the future in order to meet its own needs (not a material planning consideration)

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 Principle of Development

9.1.1 The site is located in the settlement of Camberley; within a predominantly residential area. Policies G1, G4, H18, H19, H23, M7, and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as 37 saved) and Policies L02, SE4 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 are relevant. PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and PPS3: Housing are also relevant.

9.1.2 Policy G1 seeks to make the best use of urban land in settlement areas. Policy G4 seeks to ensure that the design of new development in terms of its scale, mass, density, quality and character are compatible with the surrounding area. Policy H18 seeks to achieve the highest density of development in the settlement having regard to a number of criteria, including the character and quality of the street scene, impact on residential amenities, form and pattern of development in the surrounding area and trees and landscape features. Policy H19 seeks to integrate car parking into housing schemes so that it does not dominate the residential environment. Policy H23 seeks to ensure the provision of appropriate amenity space. Policy M7 seeks parking in accordance with adopted standards. Policy M8 deals with highway design standards. Policy L02 seeks to protect the character of urban areas. Policy SE4 seeks to achieve high standards of design. Policy DN3 deals with parking provision.

9.1.3 The main planning issues to be addressed in assessing the merits of this proposal are:

• the impact of the proposal on the character of the area;

• the impact of the proposal on residential amenity;

• parking and access; and

• the impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

9.2 Impact on character of area

9.2.1 The layout of the proposal indicates a high level of built form and hard standing both to the front and rear of the site. It is considered that whilst the hard standing to the front would not be at odds with the street scene, and in fact already exists to the front of both 9 and 11 Krooner Road at present, the introduction of such a large area of hard standing to the far rear of the site and access road would not be conducive to the character and amenity of this residential area and may also impact on the amenities of future occupants of the development.

9.2.2 The indicative elevation shows a development of two storeys with accommodation in the roof space with car port at ground floor level and linked above. It is therefore considered that the indicative scale and appearance of the proposed building, in order to accommodate 12 one bedroom flats, would be at odds with the street scene and appear overly dominant and incongruous, particularly as the development along Krooner Road consists of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings circa 1930's.

9.3 Impact on residential amenity

9.3.1 It is indicated within the Design and Access Statement that the height of the flats will be the same as the existing dwellings currently on site, however it is considered that the creation of windows within the roof slope will allow for a level of overlooking that does not currently exist. The ability to overlook at a second storey level is considered to be far greater than at first floor level and that a significant loss in privacy would result as well as increasing a sense of being overlooked, particularly to neighbours 7 and 5 Krooner Road and those on the opposite side of the road.

9.3.2 The building would have a footprint of 14 metres by 22 metres (308 square metres) with the only separation being the car port at ground floor level. This combined bulk of building would not only appear incongruous within the street scene, but would result in a loss of outlook and space within the street scene that would appear oppressive from the properties immediately opposite 9 and 11 Krooner Road.

38 9.3.3 The bulk of the building is also considered to have an overbearing and overshadowing effect on immediate neighbour 7 Krooner Road. However more significantly would be the movement of vehicles within the rear of the site, both in terms of noise and at night time light.

9.4 Parking and access

9.4.1 Initially the CHA raised no objection to the proposal in respect to access and parking. The application provides for 16 car parking spaces which is considered by officers to represent over provision. In the light of officers concerns the CHA is reassessing the merits of the proposal and an oral update will be made to the committee on this issue.

9.5 The impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.5.1 An Appropriate Assessment has been carried out. The proposed development falls within 1-2 kms of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The proposed development would lead to an increased residential population in close proximity to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. As such, the proposed development, in combination with all other proposals, is likely to adversely affect the integrity of the Special Protection Area, and is therefore considered to be unacceptable on these grounds The proposal does not include any measures to mitigate this likely adverse impact, and as such objection is raised to the proposal.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that with regard to the layout of the development and indicative scale of the building proposed that the block of 12 one bedroom flats, if permitted, would give rise to an un-neighbourly form of development harmful to the residential amenities of the immediate neighbours as well as appearing dominant and visually incongruous within the street scene, detrimental to the visual amenities of the immediate area. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the development would not adversely effect upon the integrity of the SPA.

10.2 The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

06 2008/0619 Reg Date 16/06/2008 Parkside

LOCATION: ASHLEY HOUSE, WAVERLEY CLOSE, CAMBERLEY, GU15 1JH PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of a part three storey part two storey building with accommodation in the roof space to comprise 8 two bedroom flats with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing buildings. Access, layout and scale to be considered. TYPE: Outline APPLICANT: Mr Joe Burgess OFFICER: Gill Hillage

1.0 SUMMARY

This application would normally be delegated to the Head of Built Environment to determine, but at the request of a Local Member it has been brought to this Committee for determination.

1.1 An identical application was considered by the Planning Applications Committee on 19 November 2007, when it was refused solely on the grounds of detriment to the Special Protection Area. An Interim Avoidance Strategy has now been adopted by the Council wherein small sites such as this can provide a financial contribution to mitigate against harmful impacts on the SPA. A unilateral obligation has been offered by the applicant to secure the necessary contribution as set out in the Avoidance Strategy. As such the previous reason for refusal is now overcome.

1.2 No other reasons for refusal were raised by the Committee for the previous application in November 2007 and there have been no other material changes in policy or circumstances since that previous decision. Therefore the application is recommended for deferral to allow completion of the legal undertaking, following which the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions set out below. If however the agreement is not concluded within 3 months of the date of this committee, then the application be refused on the grounds that the applicant has not provided the necessary mitigation to direct recreational activity away from the Special Protection Areas.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1 Defer and Delegate and subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure mitigation in accordance with the Councils adopted Special protection Area Interim Avoidance Strategy dated 29th August 2008, at no cost to the Council, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the appearance and landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(a) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years of the date of this permission.

(b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. 40

Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and to comply with Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) and Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (2) of the Planning and the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to include, brick, tile, guttering, fenestration. Once approved the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

3. The construction of the development hereby approved, including the operation of any plant and machinery shall not be carried out on the site except between the hours of 8am and 7pm on weekdays and 8am and 1pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Public Holidays’ include New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupants and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

4. The highest part of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed 11.2m meters measured from the highest point of the immediate adjoining ground level. Unapproved artificial alteration of the ground level will not be accepted as demonstration of compliance with this condition.

Reason: In order to obtain a satisfactory form and scale of development and safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas.

5. Before works commence on site details of the proposed finished ground floor slab levels of all building(s) and the finished ground levels of the site including roads, private drives, etc. in relation to the existing ground levels of the site and adjoining land, (measured from a recognised datum point) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the development shall be built in accordance with the approved details.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) details of all walls (including retaining walls) and fencing shall be submitted

41 to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Once approved the details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is first occupied.

7. Prior to first occupation, acoustic double glazing of at least 4/16/4 specification shall be installed in living rooms and bedrooms of all facades.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by the occupiers of the dwellings and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) , Policy SE4 (Design and Quality of Development) and Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved)Policy H18 (Residential Development in Settlement Areas) and PPG24 Planning and Noise.

8. Prior to first occupation, acoustic passive or mechanical ventilation units shall be installed in all bedrooms and habitable rooms.

9. The new development shall not be occupied until the proposed vehicular access to Waverley Close has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. All shall be permanently maintained and the visibility sight lines shall be kept clear of any obstructions between 0.6m & 2.0m above ground level.

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with Policies DN2 & DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED) and Policies M7 & M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED).

10. No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan for 12 cars to be parked vehicles to turn so they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking and turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated use.

. Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, pattern and character of surrounding development and respects the character of the area and quality of the street scene.

2. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties such as to justify refusing the application.

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. 4. The development hereby permitted includes appropriate mitigation against harmful impacts to the Special Protection Area.

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

3. Residential Development in Settlement Areas. Development Control Guidelines. Supplementary Planning Guidance 2002.

4. PPS 3 Housing.

5. PPG 13 Transport.

Informative(s)

1. There are public sewers crossing this site and no building works will be permitted within 3m of the sewers without the approval of Thames Water.

2. HI(Inf)7 (Highway) HI7

3. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

4. HI(Inf)18 (Highway) HI18

Recommendation 2. In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not complete within three months of the date of this Committee, the Authority will undertake an Appropriate Assessment and if the Authority is then unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).then the application shall be Refused for the following reasons:

43 that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Previous committee report SU/07/1026.

3.2 Consultation and neighbour notification responses.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 This 0.15 ha corner site is located on the north side of Portsmouth Road at its junction with Waverley Close. It currently comprises a detached two storey dwelling and detached double garage and garden area.

4.2 Access to the property is via Waverley Close which is a small cul de sac serving four other houses. The cul de sac abuts the M3 motorway. Detached dwellings adjoin the western and northern boundaries.

4.3 There is an established hedgerow on the Waverley Close boundary and hedging and trees border the Portsmouth Road boundary. A triangular grass verge and bus stop are located to the front, between the site and Portsmouth Road.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/07/1026 Permission refused for outline application to erect 8 flats. This application is identical to the current submission and was refused purely on the grounds of detrimental impact to the SPA.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This outline application proposes demolition of the existing building and erection of 8 x 2 bed flats together with 12 parking spaces. Matters of access layout and scale are for formal consideration at this stage. The appearance of the building and landscaping are reserved matters.

6.2 A two storey building with accommodation in the roof space is proposed. Three flats would be provided on the ground and first floors and two flats would be provided in the roofspace. The building would vary in height from approximately 9.6m to 11.2m. It would face onto Waverley Close and the existing access would be retained. The proposal would give rise to a density of 53 dwellings per ha.

6.3 Twelve car parking spaces would be provided (1.5 spaces per flat) in a forecourt arrangement together with cycle parking and refuse store.

6.4 No trees are to be felled and existing hedgerows are to be retained.

44 7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Raise no objection subject to conditions. Highway Authority

7.2 Head of Environmental Raises no objection subject to soundproofing conditions and raises Services no objection to refuse storage.

7.3 Natural England Has confirmed that it would not raise objection to those applications that can be considered under the adopted Interim Avoidance Strategy.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report 2 representations have been received which raise the following issues:

8.1 • No need for more flats in this area(see para 9.3)

• Increased parking and congestion on surrounding roads(see para 9.5)

• detriment to wildlife (see para 9.6)

• detriment to residential amenities, overlooking (see para 9.4)

• threat to trees (see para 9.3)

• out of scale and character with other dwellings in the street (see para 9.3)

• concern that restrictive covenants may be breached (this is not a planning matter)

• reduction in property values (this is not a planning matter)

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The site is in the settlement of Camberley and Portsmouth Road is designated as a Green Corridor in the Surrey Heath Local Plan (as saved). Policies G1(Making Best Use of Urban Land), G4 (Design Principles), G23 (Green Corridors), H18 (Residential Development in Settlement Areas) and M7 (Off Street Car Parking) of the Local Plan and Policies LO2 (Managing Urban Areas) and SE4 (Design and Quality of Development)of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) together with the advice contained in SPG “Residential Development in Settlement Areas” PPS3 and PPS9, are most relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

9.2 The main issues in this case are:

• The impact of the proposal on the character of the area, the quality of the street scene and the Green Corridor;

• The impact of the proposal on residential amenities;

• Highway and Parking Issues

• The impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

45 9.3 The impact of the proposal on the character of the area, the quality of the street scene and the Green Corridor.

9.3.1 Waverley Close is a short cul de sac serving five detached properties set in spacious plots and comprises a mix of bungalows and two storey houses. Higher density housing is located opposite the site at Hope Fountain. Development plan policies and PPS3 advice encourage higher density housing in sustainable urban locations. The site is in a fairly sustainable location with a bus stop outside and close to local facilities and schools. The existing building on the site is of no particular merit. The principle of a flatted development is therefore acceptable provided it can be accommodated without detriment to the character of the area.

9.3.2 The site is well screened from the Portsmouth Road and whilst the flank end of the proposed flats would be partially visible from Portsmouth Road due to the increased height of the building , it would be set some 14m to 15m back from the front boundary and the substantial green frontage would be retained. The front facade of the building would also be set back some 14m to 15m from the Waverley Close frontage and the forecourt car parking would be largely concealed from view by the existing dense hedgerow.

9.3.3 The proposed footprint of the building is considered to be well positioned on the site so as to retain a sense of space about the building. Although the proposed height of the building is greater than that of surrounding dwellings, most of the plots are well screened on all boundaries and generally concealed from public view. A very tall conifer hedge exists between the site and the adjoining property in Waverley Close such that the application site reads in isolation from its adjoining properties. As such it is considered that a flatted scheme of the size and scale proposed could be appropriately accommodated on the site and subject to a high quality of design, the proposed development is not considered likely to impact detrimentally on the quality of the street scene or the character of the area.

9.3.4 Existing trees and established planting and hedgerows are to be retained and sufficient space will remain around the building to increase planting where necessary and thereby enhance the character of the Green Corridor.

9.3.5 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character of the area, the quality of the street scene and the Green Corridor.

9.3.6 No reason for refusal was raised on these grounds in relation to the identical application previously submitted and considered by the Committee in November 2007. There have been no material changes with respect to this issue, since the previous decision.

9.4 The impact of the proposal on residential amenities.

9.4.1 The building would be well screened to the north by tall dense conifer trees and would be sited some 4m to 5m away from the common boundary. Given these separation distances and the tall intervening tree screen, it is considered that the proposed development would give rise to an acceptable building relationship with the neighbouring dwelling “Berrylands”.

9.4.2 The rear elevation of the building would be sited some 12m to 16m from the boundary with 1 Old Portsmouth Road to the east. However, this boundary forms the front garden and driveway to that property. Although some degree of overlooking could occur from the first floor windows of the proposed building it would be towards the front garden and driveways of nos 1 and 3 Old Portsmouth Road. Furthermore, details of the design and positioning of windows are not for consideration at this stage and it is considered that with careful design overlooking to these front garden areas could be minimised.

9.4.3 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to undue detriment to existing residential amenities.

46 9.4.4 No reason for refusal was raised on these grounds in relation to the identical application previously submitted and considered by the Committee in November 2007. There have been no material changes with respect to this issue, since the previous decision.

9.5 Highway and Parking Issues

9.5.1 The Highway Authority raises no objection to the access and parking proposals.

9.5.2 A parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per flat is considered to be appropriate in this location, given the proximity of the bus stop and given that some off street parking could take place on Waverley Close for visitors, if required, without undue detriment to highway safety or residential amenities.

9.5.3 No reason for refusal was raised on these grounds in relation to the identical application previously submitted and considered by the Committee in November 2007. There have been no material changes with respect to this issue, since the previous decision.

9.6 The impact of the proposal on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

9.6.1 The Council adopted an Interim Avoidance Strategy in July 2008. This relates to small sites of less than 10 dwellings net and allows for financial contributions to be made towards SANGS, monitoring and access management measures, as mitigation towards the impacts of new development on the SPA. A new SANGS has been identified at Chobham Place Woods, which will help to absorb additional recreational pressure in the Borough and divert pressure away from the SPA.

9.6.2 The applicant has agreed to make financial contributions in accordance with the strategy and a draft unilateral obligation is under consideration. It is not necessary for an Appropriate Assessment to be completed where new development for small sites is able to mitigate in accordance with the Interim Avoidance Strategy.

9.6.3 Subject to the completion of the unilateral undertaking, the impact of the proposed development on the SPA is now considered to be acceptable.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The proposal seeks to provide small dwelling units in a sustainable location within the settlement area in accordance with development plan objectives.

10.2 It is concluded that the scale of the development proposed could be successfully accommodated on the site without detriment to the character of the area, residential amenities or highway safety. Furthermore, appropriate mitigation has been put forward with respect to the SPA which accords with the Council's adopted Interim Avoidance Strategy. The previous reason for refusing this proposal has therefore now been overcome.

07 2008/0640 Reg Date 21/07/2008 Town

LOCATION: ACCOMMODATION ABOVE THE GOOSE, 88-90 HIGH STREET, CAMBERLEY, SURREY, GU15 3RS PROPOSAL: Change of use from leisure (D2) to nightclub (SUI-GENERIS). TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr M Murat OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application seeks permission for the change of use from leisure (D2) to a night club (sui-generis). The leisure use has been vacant for eight years and the change of use is proposed to revitalise this section of the town centre.

1.2 There are a number of planning issues pertaining to this change of use such as residential amenity, character of the area, the vitality and viability of the town centre and anti-social behaviour.

1.3 It is considered that with regard to local and national plan policy, third party consultation and the applicants supporting information (and intention to provide a Section 106 Agreement detailing various mitigation measures for the development) that the proposal could account for the various issues identified and on balance be acceptable. However, in order to fully consider all aspects, particularly with regard to the character of the area, amenity and anti-social behaviour, it is recommended that Members consider imposing a three year temporary permission. This period would enable the local planning authority opportunity to monitor the use and to establish whether a night club could be accommodated in this location without harm to matters of acknowledged importance.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1: Defer and Delegate and subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the following at no cost to the Council:-

1. the night club would only be open to persons over 21 years of age;

2. security staff would be employed both within and outside the premises to ensure public order was maintained at all times;

3. appropriate contributions towards additional Surrey Policing and CCTV maintenance;

4. payment towards the provision of two additional CCTV cameras should permanent consent be granted in three years time; and

5. Contributions towards the pedestrianisation of the High Street should permanent planning permission be granted in three years time.

Then the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out below:-

1. The permission hereby granted shall be limited to the period expiring on the 20th October 2011 on or before which date the use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the premises reinstated, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 48

Reason: So that the local planning authority may fully assess the impact of the night club with regard to amenity, character of the area and anti-social behaviour in line with policy TC1 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and PPS6: Planning for Town Centres.

2. The night club shall only be operated as such between the hours of 9pm and 2am Monday to Sunday, with the exception of Christmas Eve and New Years Eve which may operate between the hours of 8pm and 4am.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

3. The windows of the facade overlooking the High Street shall be accostically treated prior to the commencement of the premises as a night club.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with PPG24 Planning and Noise.

. Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted would not detract from the character of the Town Centre.

2. The development hereby permitted would respect the scale, mass, density, quality, character materials and landscape design of development.

3. The proposed use would be appropriate to the quality, accessibility, vitality and viability of the Town Centre.

4. The proposed use would not be prejudicial to highway safety.

5. The proposed use would not be detrimental to residential amenity.

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

1. Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy TC1: Maintaining and Enhancing the role of the Town Centre, Policy TC4: Design Considerations for New Development.

2. Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED) Policy L03: Town Centres.

3. PPS 6 Planning for Town Centres.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

Recommendation 2: In the event that a legal agreement is not complete within three months of the date of this Committee, to provide the necessary mitigation measures to enable an appropriate development, then the application be refused for the following reason:- 49 1. The planning authority, in light of the available information and the failure to complete an appropriate legal agreement is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal would not adversely impact on residential and visual amenity, or the vitality and viability of the Town Centre. As such the proposal conflicts with policies TC1: Maintaining and Enhancing the Role of the Town Centre and TC2: Environmental Improvements of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved, policy LO3: Town Centres of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and Planning Policy Statement 6: Planning for Town Centres.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations received

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site is located within Camberley Town Centre as defined on the proposals map although there are no specific policy designations that affect this site.

4.2 The site consists of a three storey building on the corner of the High Street and Pembroke Broadway. The building is of brick and render construction, with glazed element at second storey level with pitched tiled roof.

4.3 The current use for the premises is public house at ground floor. (This does not form part of the application and would remain). The application itself relates to the first and second floor of the premises which are currently vacant and were previously used as D2 leisure, some 8 years ago. Immediately in front of the premises, along the High Street is a taxi rank, whilst on the opposite side there are traffic restrictions in place in the form of yellow lines. The High Street is one way running from Pembroke Broadway up towards London Road.

4.4 There are various commercial uses along this section of the High Street, including A1 Retail, A2: Financial and Professional Services, A3: Restaurant, A4: Drinking Establishments and A5: Take Away, all of which are conducive to the variety and vitality of a town centre location. The buildings are predominantly two storeys in height.

4.5 Immediately opposite the site (High Street) are Yates and Wetherspoons, both of which are drinking establishments with late night licenses. Further along the High Street, on the same side of the road is the Tru night club.

4.6 Pembroke Broadway is characterised by various style office and professional service buildings, some two to five storeys in height. There are also a number of bus stops on both sides of the road. In addition Camberley railway station is positioned immediately opposite the Pembroke Broadway frontage of the application site.

4.7 Heathcote Road (over the railway line) is the closest residential area, some 60 metres from the application site. Other residential properties are found in Portesbery Road and Park Street.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 No relevant planning history for this site

50 6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application seeks permission for the change of use of a vacant leisure facility (D2) at first and second floor level to a night club (sui-generis). The applicant has stated that the night club would be restricted to persons 21 or over in order to reduce the risk of anti social behaviour as well as to cater for a market that is not presently catered for.

6.2 The applicant has offered an appropriate legal agreement should Members be minded to approve the application. The legal agreement would include:

1. the night club would only be open to persons over 21 years of age;

2. security staff would be employed both within and outside the premises to ensure public order was maintained at all times;

3. appropriate contributions towards additional Surrey Policing and CCTV maintenance;

4. payment towards the provision of two additional CCTV cameras should permanent consent be granted in three years time; and

5. Contributions towards the pedestrianisation of the High Street should permanent planning permission be granted in three years time.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County No objection Highway Authority

7.2 Head of Environmental No objection subject to appropriate noise conditions. Services

7.3 Surrey Police Strongly Object: This proposed development will undoubtedly impact on the existing community and has the very real capacity to increase criminality and anti-social behaviour levels in this ward and the surrounding area.

7.4 Local Plan Manager Objection:

Subject to comments made by other consultees in respect of the detailed operation of the nightclub, I raise an objection to the above application on the grounds that the proposal is contrary to PPS6 and the objectives of Policy TC1 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000. The development proposed would likely give rise to a level of noise and disturbance that would be detrimental to the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding residential properties which would be exacerbated by the use of this area late into the evenings. In addition, it is considered that the proposed use would be detrimental to the character of the area and the quality of the environment in this part of the Town Centre.

7.5 Head of Licensing Objection:

The proposed nightclub is situated in an area to which a special cumulative impact policy applies.

51 This cumulative impact policy will be applied to the area of Camberley town centre bordered by High Street, Pembroke Broadway, Park Street and London Road. This area has been identified as being under stress because the cumulative impact of the concentration of late night and drink led premises in this area has led to serious problems of crime, disorder and/or public nuisance.

This special policy creates a rebuttable presumption that applications within the town centre area for new premises licences or club premises certificates or material variations will normally be refused, if relevant representations are received about the cumulative impact on the licensing objectives, unless the applicant can demonstrate why the operation of the premises involved will not add to the cumulative impact already being experienced.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report seven letters of support have been received and one letter of objection the contents of which are summarised below:

8.1 Support:

• The application will improve the viability and status of Camberley, particularly in the evening;

• The night club will cater for an older age group which is not at present;

• The development would enable older people to socialise in Camberley without the need to go to places such as London, Reading, Guildford and Brighton;

• The night club would be ideally located in relation to public transport (train, bus and taxi);

• The lessees of the Goose Public House have stated that the night club would complement their trade;

• This night club would encourage the existing night club to improve its services and facilities in order to compete, which would aid in the improvement of Camberley Town Centre at night; and

• The night club would bring much needed employment to the local area and would be run by locals.

8.2 Objection:

• The combined impact of the existing night club and the proposed night club could result in noise disturbance, highway safety and vitality (para.9.2 and 9.3).

• The cumulative impact with the existing non-retail uses in the vicinity is likely to give rise to a deterioration in the quality of the town centre environment at night time (para.9.2).

• This proposal will result in the loss of a D2 leisure use in a central location. This should be resisted to ensure a balanced range of uses is retained within the town centre, 52 contrary to policy CS1: Loss of Community Building and Uses of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of PPS6: Planning for Town Centres (para.9.1).

• Although the applicant states that the premises has been vacant for a number of years it is normal practice to provide evidence of marketing to support that the use is no longer viable, the proposal is therefore contrary to part (c) of local plan policy CS1 (para.9.1).

• The proposal will not comply with the emerging Local Development Framework as two night clubs in close proximity are likely to impact adversely on the town centre in terms of residential amenity, highway safety and the character of the area (para.9.1). • The development if allowed would tip the balance in favour of entertainment uses, in particular night clubs, which will conflict with the existing leisure uses already in operation. (paragraph 1.7 of PPS6 states "It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition, preserve existing commercial interests or to prevent innovation")

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 Principles of Development

9.1 The site is located within Camberley Town Centre, as such policies TC1, TC2, TC10, TC17, R1, G1 and G6 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies LO3, LO7, DN2, DN4, DN5 and DN13 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national advice contained within PPS6: Planning for Town Centres is also relevant.

9.2 Having regard to the above policies it is considered the main planning issues to be addressed are:

• The principle of a change of use from leisure (D2) to a night club (sui-generis);

• Impact on the vitality of the Town Centre and the character of the area;

• Impact on residential amenity; and

• Parking and highway safety.

9.2 The principle of a change of use from leisure (D2) to a night club (sui-generis)

9.2.1 The application comprises the loss of a leisure use and its replacement with a nightclub (sui generis). Policy R1 of the Local Plan “Retention of Recreation Facilities” resists the loss of leisure uses except where suitable alternative provision is being made. However, the Surrey Heath Open Space and Recreation Study 2007 included an assessment of health and fitness facilities in the Borough. It concluded that the completion of the health and fitness facilities at The Atrium and Lightwater Leisure Centre would result in there being no shortfall in such facilities. The Study also did not identify any other particular indoor, town centre leisure use for which there was a particular need which could reasonably be accommodated in the application site. The application should therefore not be resisted on the grounds of the loss of a leisure use.

9.3 Impact on the vitality of the Town Centre and the character of the area

9.3.1 Nightclubs are an appropriate town centre use in principle as they bring vitality to the town centre and help meet the recreational and cultural needs of the community. Paragraph 1.3 of PPS6: Planning for Town Centres states that:

53 "The Governments key objective for town centres is to promote their vitality and viability by:

• planning for the growth and development of existing centres; and

• promoting and enhancing existing centres, by focusing development in such centres and encouraging a wide range of services in a good environment, accessible to all".

9.3.2 Paragraph 3.22 of PPS6: Planning for Town Centres addresses how local planning authorities should consider the impact of proposed development on the centre affected. It states that account should be taken of: potential changes to the quality and character of centres and to its role in the social life of the community; and the implications of proposed entertainment uses for the evening and night time economy. This paragraph also makes clear that the consideration of development proposals should also take into account references in paragraph 2.24 of PPS6. This paragraph states that local planning authorities should consider the cumulative impact of developments on the character and function of the centre, anti-social behaviour, crime and the amenities of nearby residents. A corresponding consideration of the impact of the proposal on the character of the town centre, and levels of anti social behaviour, crime and amenity, can also be made with regard to the objectives of Policy TC1 of the Local Plan which aim to meet the social and cultural needs of the community.

9.3.3 The town centre has a variety of uses that occur throughout the day, which aid in maintaining its viability and vitality. It is considered the principle of a use that would operate in the evenings would contribute to the town centres vitality.

9.3.4 The Council has adopted a Cumulative Impact Policy in December 2007, whereby there is a presumption against the granting of late night licenses, unless it is established that there are sufficient measures in place to account for disturbance to amenity and anti-social behaviour. Although the licensing Authority is separate to the Council's function as Local Planning Authority, it is considered that both of the issues identified could have an adverse affect on the character of the area. In order to account for these points the applicant has offered a Section 106 Agreement to mitigate against anti-social behaviour and disturbance to amenity. It is considered that with a Section 106 Agreement in place the development could be reasonably controlled and would comply with the provisions of licensing and the objectives of PPS6.

"2.25 Local authorities should ensure that there is an integrated approach to the evening and night-time economy, so that their planning policies and proposals take account of and complement their Statement of Licensing Policy and the promotion of the licensing objectives under the Licensing Act 2003. Local authorities should consider developing a local strategy for the evening and night-time economy which, when co-ordinated with other local strategies, tackles a range of issues from anti-social behaviour and crime prevention to adequate late-night transport provision to support these activities. 3.32 Conditions can also be used by local authorities in seeking to resolve issues relating to the impact of the development on traffic and the amenity of neighbouring residents...In considering how to mitigate night-time noise, etc, local authorities should consider alternatives to a complete ban, such as embodying codes of practice into planning agreements".

9.3.5 Officers are of the view therefore that with a Section 106 Agreement in place a temporary consent for three years could be entertained. This would enable the local planning authority to fully consider all aspects of the proposal in line with local and national plan policy should the applicant seek to renew the permission after the three year period. This approach would promote the vitality and viability of the town centre and allow the documentation of activities associated with the night club during this period. After the expiry of this period the local planning authority would be able to make an informed decision as to the impact of the development on the character of the area. 54 9.4 Impact on Residential Amenity

9.4.1 It is not considered that the application would have an immediate impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties, in terms of noise disturbance from within the club and the change of use of the premises per say. However, it is agreed that there may be some impact when people leave the premises, particularly when walking home through residential areas.

9.4.2 With regard to the latter point the applicant has put forward a variety of measures that could be included within a Section 106 Agreement, both in the interim and the longer term period, should a permanent permission be granted. It is anticipated that these measures would suitably account for the perceived impact of the proposal. However, it is recommended that in order to fully assess the longer term impacts on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties that a three year temporary consent be granted so that the wider impacts of the night club use can be fully assessed over a reasonable period of time.

9.5 Parking and Highway Safety

9.5.1 This is a highly accessible location with a series of bus stops in close proximity along Pembroke Broadway, a taxi rank immediately in front of the High Street frontage and Camberley railway station on the opposite side of Pembroke Broadway. As the proposal is for a night club it is expected that the majority of users will be reliant on walking and public transport. It is therefore not considered that the proposal will cause unacceptable harm to highway safety and where parking is required there are a number of public car parks within and around the town centre. The County Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.

9.5.2 The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to make provision within the legal agreement for a contribution towards the pedestrianisation of the High Street, should full consent be granted in three years time, this will further encourage sustainable methods of transport to and from the site and will promote pedestrian safety.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 On balance it is considered that there is sufficient evidence and mitigation to support a temporary consent for three years. This approach will enable the applicant to demonstrate that the night club can be managed without causing harm to amenity, the character of the area, highway safety and anti-social behaviour. This temporary consent will also allow the local planning authority to collate any evidence to the contrary.

10.2 It is proposed that after the three year period the local planning authority will be in a position to assess the application with the knowledge of all the issues raised in this application and there relevance in real terms. A full permission could then be fully considered with regard to this information.

10.3 It is recommended that a three year temporary consent be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

08 2008/0690 Reg Date 15/07/2008 Bisley

LOCATION: 324 GUILDFORD ROAD, BISLEY, WOKING, GU24 9AE PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of a detached part single part two storey office building following demolition of existing. (Access layout and scale to be considered). (Amended Plans & additional info rec'd 28/08/08) TYPE: Outline APPLICANT: S W Stedman Ltd OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

This application was deferred by Members at the Planning Applications Committee on 22nd September 2008 so that Members could undertake a site visit.

Since the original report Bisley Parish Council raised an objection to the proposal for the following reasons: 1) Scale of the building and its impact on neighbouring properties; 2) Highway issues particularly with regard to the access required for the garage and public house on the opposite side of the road; 3) Sufficient on site parking; and 4) Smoking area should be located away from neighbouring dwellings.

In response to the above comments: 1) The development would have some impact on neighbouring properties. (See para 9.4 of original report) 2 & 3) The development would use the existing vehicular access and provides on site parking in accordance with maximum parking standards. (See para 9.5 of original report). The County Highway Authority has confirmed that if this development were implemented together with other proposals in the vicinity (e.g. The Fox Garage and The Fox Public House) the cumulative impact would not prejudice highway safety. 4) The application shows open space around the building and a patio area is shown to the rear which could provide an area for smokers. Given the proposed planting along the boundary with No. 322 and the juxtaposition of the neighbouring dwelling it is considered that if smokers used the patio as a smoking area it would not adversely affect residential amenity.

The recommendation to Members of the committee is as before and is set out below. RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

(a) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years of the date of this permission.

56 Reason: To prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions and to comply with Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order) and Section 92(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (2) of the Planning and the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Temporary fencing shall be erected along the boundaries of the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such fencing shall be erected before development works commence and removed at the completion of such or when permanent fencing is erected as approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of protecting residential and visual amenities during the period in which development works are carried out and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy G5 Design Principles for Residential Areas.

3. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to include, brick, tile, guttering, fenestration. Once approved the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy G4 Design Principles and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

4. The offices hereby approved shall not operate on Sundays, Public Holidays, or except between the hours of 8am and 7pm on weekdays and 8am and 1.30pm on Saturdays. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Public Holidays’ include New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

5. The premises shall be used for B1(a) Offices and for no other purpose (including any other purposes in Class B1 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order).

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

6. The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for a maximum of 8 cars and a minimum of 6 cycles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking and turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to accord with policies DN2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and Policy M7 and M8 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000.

7. No development shall start until a Method of Construction 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 (d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management) (e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

8. Before any of the operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or from the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided as must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used whenever the said operations are carried out.

Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) and Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED).

9. The highest part of the development hereby permitted shall not exceed ‘7’ meters measured from the highest point of the immediate adjoining ground level. Unapproved artificial alteration of the ground level will not be accepted as demonstration of compliance with this condition.

10. The gross floor area of the building hereby permitted shall not exceed ‘593’ square meters.

11. Details of reinstatement of the land if demolition takes place and building works do not commence within 6 months of the date of this permission are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the agreed reinstatement works are to be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, within an agreed time scale.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

58 . Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted is considered to provide for the maintenance of the local economy and respects the character of surrounding development.

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

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

2. Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED) Policy L07: Employment Land, Policy DN2: Movement Implications of Development and Policy DN3: Parking Provision.

3. PPG 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Demolition of existing bldg DF7

3. HI(Inf)7 (Highway) HI7

4. HI(Inf)12 (Highway) HI12

5. HI(Inf)13 (Highway) HI13

6. HI(Inf)15 (Highway) HI15

7. The applicant is advised that through the consideration of appearance during the reserved matters application the proposed fire escape on the west elevation should incorporate high level screening to protect the residential amenities of 326 Guildford Road.

PREVIOUS REPORT TO 22 SEPTEMBER 08 COMMITTEE

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application is for outline permission to consider the access, layout and scale of the development with landscaping and appearance being considered at a reserved matters stage. The proposal would involve the demolition of the existing building and out buildings on site but the use remains the same; Class B1 Business. 59 1.2 The site falls within the settlement area of Bisley and proposes to replace the existing single storey structure, with a predominantly two storey structure, although the detail and design of the replacement building would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

1.3 The main issues examined within the report are: • The impact of the development on the character and the appearance of the are;

• the impact of the development on residential amenity; and

• highway/parking issues. 1.4 The report concludes that the development would regenerate the existing site and improve the overall character and appearance of the area and that the increase in height to part one part two storeys would not be unacceptably harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The development would also not be prejudicial to highway safety subject to conditions. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

(a) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years of the date of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

61 surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used whenever the said operations are carried out.

10. The gross floor area of the building hereby permitted shall not exceed ‘593’ square meters.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted is considered to provide for the maintenance of the local economy and respects the character of surrounding development.

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

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

62 2. Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED) Policy L07: Employment Land, Policy DN2: Movement Implications of Development and Policy DN3: Parking Provision.

3. PPG 4 Industrial and Commercial Development and Small Firms.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Demolition of existing bldg DF7

3. HI(Inf)7 (Highway) HI7

4. HI(Inf)12 (Highway) HI12

5. HI(Inf)13 (Highway) HI13

6. HI(Inf)15 (Highway) HI15

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Relevant Planning History

3.2 Consultation Responses and Letters of Representation

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The site consists of a vacant builders yard and joinery workshop with associated offices; Use Class B1 Business.

4.2 The existing vacant structure is single storey in height and is primarily of brick construction with corrugated roofing. Part of the building is of breeze block construction with timber cladding and a further section an open corrugated storage area. There is a porta-cabin to the north side of the existing building.

4.3 The site boundaries consist of brick walling to the south and west and fencing, shrub and tree screening to the east, north and part of the western boundary.

4.4 There is existing vehicular access from the site onto Guildford Road, although the two are separated by a 15 metre grass verge.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/76/0004 Established use certificate for use of land and buildings as builders yard. Approved - 26.10.76

63 5.2 SU/86/0381 Demolish store and erect temporary buildings for office use and relocation of office building for storage use. Approved - 11.03.87

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application is to demolish the existing single storey vacant building, previously used as B1 Business use, and replace it with a part one part two storey building within the same use class.

6.2 This is an outline application only considering access, layout and scale with landscaping and appearance to be considered at the reserved matters stage. The elevations submitted are therefore purely indicative.

6.3 There are four existing on site parking spaces and it is proposed to increase this provision to seven, one of which would be an allocated disabled space.

6.4 The layout of the proposal would be largely in accordance with the layout of the current structure.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway No Objection: Authority The proposed office development is small, and the increase in floor area compared to what is there is only 273m2. On Guildford Road there is highway work taking place, which has improved visibility, compared to what I looked at during a pre planning consultation. Visibility along Guildford Road from the proposed access is therefore adequate.

7.2 Head of Environmental No Objection Services

7.3 Bisley Parish Council No Response Received

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report one letter of objection had been received which raised the following issues:

8.1 • Overlooking of 326 Guildford Road (para. 9.3)

• Loss of privacy (para. 9.3)

• The three ground floor windows have direct sight lines into the garden of 326 (para. 9.3)

• No reference is made to landscaping and planting shown on the plans (detail to be considered at a reserved matters stage)

• The fire escape (presumed to be metal) is not in keeping with the rest of the design (detail to be considered at a reserved matters stage)

• The fire escape gives easy and likely access to the patio area which will probably be used as the smoking area (para. 9.3) 64 • The fire escape directly overlooks the kitchen window of 326 and is likely to be used as the smoking area during inclement weather (detail to be considered at a reserved matters stage although an informative has been attached requiring suitable screening to prevent overlooking)

• The 'stepped' out part of the west elevation have ground and first floor toilet windows. Although opaque they will still allow overlooking, are these windows necessary? (para. 9.3)

• No dimensions given for the height of the building (the building has a scaled measurement of 7.3 metres and when considering the design aspects of a reserved matters application the height will need to reflect this)

• No mention is made of air conditioning for the buildings, if this is to be installed it will have a noise impact on residents (this could only be considered if an application for air conditioning units was received and would need to have regard to noise impact on neighbours); and

• As materials are not to be considered it is difficult to understand the design finish (detail to be considered at a reserved matters stage)

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Bisley and involves the redevelopment of an existing Business site, the principle of the development is therefore acceptable. As such policies G4 Design Principles, G23 Green Corridors, E1 Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites Outside Core Employment Areas, M7 Off Street Car Parking, M8 Highway Design Standards, M12 Improved Pedestrian Facilities and M14 Complementary Cycling Measures of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies LO7 Employment Land, SE4 Design and Quality of Development, DN2 Movement Implications of Development, DN3 Parking Provision and DN5 Cycle and Pedestrian Routes of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved), together with government advice contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development and PPG4: Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms are most relevant in the consideration of this proposal.

9.2 Having regard to the above policies the main issues in this case are: • The impact on the character and appearance of the area;

• impact on residential amenities; and

• highway/parking issues.

9.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area

9.3.1 The site is located among a small group of five detached dwellings along the western side of Guildford Road, Bisley. On the opposite side of the road is 'The Fox' public house with restaurant and car sales garage. Behind the rear gardens of 326 and 328 Guildford Road is a substantial industrial building with associated car parking.

9.3.2 The existing vacant commercial building on site is single storey and is constructed with various materials. The site is currently well screened by dense high shrub and tree planting and is set back some 15 metres from Guildford Road. The site is only readily visible from the access road to the south of the site and adjoining properties. Therefore whilst it is

65 accepted that the site at present is of poor design and appearance its impact within the street scene is very minimal as is its visual impact on the character of the area.

9.3.3 The immediate area is characterised by two storey detached properties, predominantly residential in nature, the increase from single storey to two storeys is therefore considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of this section of Guildford Road. Although the development would result in a visual presence within the street scene, which does not currently exist, it is considered that through appropriate design and use of materials the development could make a positive contribution to its surroundings and improve the site to the benefit of the character and appearance of the area and its location along a designated Green Corridor.

9.3.4 There would be no material change of use as a result of this application, the site remaining as B1 Business use. It is expected however, that there would be a moderate increase in movement to and from the site, although it is considered that it would only be a small increase and could easily be accommodated by existing road and bus links. The development therefore accords with the principles of Local Plan Policy E1: Existing Industrial and Commercial Sites Outside Core Employment Areas.

9.4 Impact on residential amenities

9.4.1 It is considered that the proposal would have less of an impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties in terms of site activity and use as the application is for B1(a) Business use, which are offices (financial and professional services), whereas the site was previously being used as B1(c) Light Industry in addition to B1(a) Business use.

9.4.2 With regard to the increase in height from single storey to two storeys it is accepted that the development would have some bearing on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, particularly 326 and 322. It is considered however that the positioning and distance of the development in relation to these neighbours and existing and proposed boundary screening would enable the development to be successfully accommodated without undue harm.

9.4.3 With regard to the amenities of neighbour 326 amended plans have been submitted showing the development to be single storey in height across the shared boundary of the application site and 326. This modification is considered to further reduce the impact of the development upon the residential amenities of this property.

9.4.4 The flank wall of neighbour 322 bounds the northern boundary of the application site and has no windows or other openings. Further along this shared boundary is high level tree and shrub screening. This existing boundary treatment and absence of windows provides suitable screening and protects the property from overlooking and loss of privacy. In addition the proposed building would be sited some 4.5 metres from the shared boundary and when combined with the above will prevent overbearing effect and overshadowing. It is therefore not considered that the development would be harmful to the residential amenities of this property.

9.4.5 The property to the rear, 326 Guildford Road, is likely to be most affected by the increase from single storey to two storeys. However, similar to 322 the flank wall of this property bounds the west elevation of this site and does not have any windows or other openings. The boundary treatment further along however is not as high as the screening between this site and 322. The proposal has attempted to overcome this issue through the submission of amended plans showing the development to be single storey in height across the shared boundary of the application site and 326. This modification is considered to further reduce the impact of the development upon the residential amenities of this property. In addition new high level boundary screening would be planted, although both of these points would be considered fully at the reserved matters stage. It is considered that these intentions would be suitable measures to protect 326 from unacceptable levels of overlooking and 66 loss of privacy and both could be required and controlled by planning conditions. On the basis of the above information it is not accepted that ground floor windows would be materially harmful to the residential amenities of 326.

9.4.6 The main bulk of the building would be sited some 4.5 metres from the shared boundary of 326 and when considered with regard to the above proposed measures it is considered that the development will not cause unacceptable harm to other residential amenities, such as overbearing impact and overshadowing.

9.4.7 The objection received made particular reference to the harm caused by persons congregating on the fire escape, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. It is agreed that this could potentially be a problem, however as appearance is to be considered at a reserved matters stage it is pertinent that an informative advising the applicant to provide measures for screening to avoid this from happening be attached to a grant of permission. The suitability and prevention of overlooking from the fire escape could then be fully assessed and accounted for in the reserved matters application.

9.4.8 Whilst the patio area would encourage staff working on the site to congregate there it is considered that this would be similar in nature to a small gathering of people sitting in the rear garden of a residential property and would not therefore be uncharacteristic of its surroundings or materially harmful. In addition this would happen within normal office opening hours so would be appropriate to its surroundings.

9.4.9 In conclusion, it is not considered that the development as proposed would cause unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of 326 Guildford Road. Conditions would be attached to a grant of permission restricting the height and scale of the development, in the interests of residential amenity; development not to exceed 7 metres in height and 593 square metres in gross floor area and details of the fire escape would be considered as part of the reserved matters application.

9.5 Highway/parking issues

9.5.1 The County Highway Authority has an adopted maximum standard of 1 space per 30m² of office space and the parking level proposed would be within this maximum standard. In addition the development has been laid out to account for pedestrians and cyclists and a secure cycle store would be provided on site.

9.5.2 The existing vehicular access does not form part of the ownership of the site, however there is a long established right of way so access will not be an issue for concern.

9.5.3 The increase in the office development is only moderate being an additional 273m². There is already highway work taking place along Guildford Road which has improved visibility site lines along the Guildford Road frontage. County Highways has therefore raised no objection to the development.

9.6 Other

9.6.1 Natural England is currently advising that office development at this proximity to the SPA is not likely to have a significant impact on the integrity of the site, either alone or in combination with other development. As such no objection is raised to the proposal on grounds of impact to the protected bird areas.

67 10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered that the redevelopment of the site for office use would be an improvement to the existing vacant building. Despite the increase in height it is considered that through careful consideration to the design and appearance (to be considered at reserved matters stage) that the development could make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area and the Green Corridor.

10.2 It is not considered the development would be unacceptably harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties and with a more concentrated office use will be an improvement to the former light industrial use. In addition the development would not cause harm to existing highway users.

10.3 With regard to the above information this application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

09 2008/0751 Reg Date 16/09/2008 Mytchett/Deepcut

LOCATION: 1 ROBERT WAY, MYTCHETT, CAMBERLEY, GU16 6DU PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey link detached dwelling house following partial demolition of garage. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr Hilder H H Hilder & Sons Ltd OFFICER: Chris French

This application would normally be determined by the Head of Built Environment under the Scheme of Delegation, however at the request of the Local Member it has been referred to this Committee for determination.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application is a resubmission of SU/07/412 for the erection of a two storey link detached dwelling. This application was refused (Appeal Dismissed) on SPA grounds only. The application has been resubmitted in the light of the SPA Interim Avoidance Strategy which has now been adopted by the Council on 29th August 2008.

1.2 The application site falls within the settlement area of Mytchett and is located on a corner plot at the junction between Robert Way and Coleford Close. The site is a flat triangular shaped plot currently forming a section of 1 Robert Way's residential garden.

1.3 The proposed development is considered to be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would not be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residential properties. In the light of the Avoidance Strategy and subject to an appropriate legal agreement being submitted to secure financial contributions to the Council for appropriate mitigation the application is recommended for approval. If however the agreement is not completed within 3 months of the date of this Committee the application is recommended for refusal as set out below.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1: Defer and Delegate and subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure mitigation in accordance with the Councils adopted Special Protection Area Interim Avoidance Strategy dated 29th August 2008, at no cost to the Council, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

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

69 Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies H17 House Extensions and H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

3. Before first occupation of the development hereby approved the first floor bathroom window in the rear elevation facing shall be completed in obscure glazing and fixed shut, in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and retained as such at all times. No additional openings shall be created in this elevation or the south eastern flank elevation without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy H17 House Extensions and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

4. Before the development is occupied the existing vehicular access to Robert Way shall be modified in accordance with the approved plan (2470/04 rev A) and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highways Authority, all to be permanently maintained and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction between 0.6 metres and 2.0 metres high above the ground.

5. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces, walls, fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

6. The hedge to the southern boundary of the site shall be retained in accordance with the approved plan, and clauses a) and b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the first occupation of the development.

a) No part of the retained hedge shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without further planning permission being granted by the Local Planning Authority. Any topping or lopping shall be in accordance with BS 3998 (tree works) and in accordance with any supplied arboricultural method statement. b) If any retained hedge is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted in a similar location and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as approved by the Local Planning Authority. c) Following the completion of any arboricultural works but before any equipment,

70 materials or machinery are brought onto the site in connection with the development protective fencing and ground protection such as geomembrane or scaffold boards in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction” shall be installed around all the retained trees in accordance with details that first shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Such protection shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in the fenced protective areas nor shall any fires be started, no tipping, refuelling, disposal of solvents or cement mixing carried out and ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation or vehicular accesses be made within the protected areas without planning permission.

Reason: This permission was only granted on the basis that the ‘retained trees’ would remain on site to mitigate the impact of the development and to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies G24 Trees and H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas.

7. No demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until tree and ground protection has been installed in accordance with British Standard 5837:2005 “Trees in Relation to Construction” as detailed within the submitted Arboricultural Report. Tree and ground protection to be installed and retained during the course of the development.

Reason: To ensure the retention of trees in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy G24 Trees of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED).

. Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, pattern and character of surrounding development and respects the character of the area and quality of the street scene.

2. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties such as to justify refusing the application.

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

3. Residential Development in Settlement Areas. Development Control

71 Guidelines. Supplementary Planning Guidance 2002.

4. PPS 3 Housing.

5. PPG 13 Transport.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

3. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority Local Transport Service before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

4. HI(Inf)18 (Highway) HI18

Recommendation 2: In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not complete within three months of the date of this Committee, the Authority will undertake an Appropriate Assessment and if the Authority is then unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) then the application shall be Refused for the following reasons:

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation and Representation responses (see paragraphs 7 & 8)

3.2 Planning History as set out in the report (see paragraph 5)

72 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 This triangular shaped site occupies a section of residential garden to the south side of the dwellinghouse at 1 Robert Way. The site is located on a corner plot at the junction between Robert Way and Coleford Close. Half of the existing attached garage is located within the application site.

4.2 Robert Way is occupied by semi detached dwellings; these properties have a uniformity of design with first floor accommodation provided by first floor flat roofed dormers.

4.3 The site is located within the settlement area of Mytchett as defined on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and is positioned approximately 630 metres from the closest point of the Thames Heath Basin Special Protection Area.

5.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

5.1 SU/06/1158 Erection of a link detached dwelling house following partial demolition of existing garage (Refused 02/02/07)

5.2 SU/07/157 Erection of a 2 storey link detached dwelling house following partial demolition of existing garage (Withdrawn 05/04/07)

5.3 SU/07/412 Erection of a 2 storey link detached dwelling house following partial demolition of existing (Refused 11/06/07, subsequent appeal dismissed 29/02/08) SPA only reason for refusal. A copy of the Appeal Decision is attached for information at Annexe C.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This application is a resubmission of planning application SU/07/412. The application has been submitted following the adoption of the SPA Interim Avoidance Strategy. The application proposes the erection of a two storey link detached dwelling house following partial demolition of existing garage. The proposed dwelling is a chalet bungalow incorporating a front and rear flat roofed dormer.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County No objections subject to condition (see paragraph 9.4) Highway Authority

8.0 REPRESENTATIONS

At the time of preparation of this report three letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:

8.1 out of character (see paragraph 9.2);

8.2 impact on trees (see paragraph 9.5); and

8.3 adverse impact on parking or access (see paragraph 9.4).

73 9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site lies within the Settlement Area of Camberley, as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan. The relevant policies relating to the above proposal are Policies G1, G4, H17, H18 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Borough Local Plan 2000 (as saved), and Policies L02, SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved).

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

• Impact on character of area

• Impact on residential amenity

• Parking and access

• Impact on Trees

• Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.2 Impact on the character of the area

9.2.1 The character and appearance of the area was a material consideration under the previous submission SU/0412 and the subsequent appeal. No objections were raised by the local planning authority or the planning inspector on character grounds. Therefore, the following comments area still applicable:

‘’It is considered the siting, design, height and detail of the proposed chalet bungalow is similar to those already found in the street. As such, the proposed dwelling would not be considered out of character.’’

9.3 Impact on residential amenity

9.3.1 There has been no material change in circumstance since the consideration of the scheme under reference SU/07/0412. therefore the following comments regarding residential amenity on the previous report are again applicable:

‘’Application 06/1158 would have resulted in a serious increase in overlooking from a rear first floor bedroom window. This current application reduces the height of the first floor windows and has moved the rear bedroom window to the north of the rear elevation placing an obscurely glazed bathroom window close to the flank boundary with neighbouring 3 Coleford Close. There would be some rear to rear garden overlooking with neighbouring 1 Robert Way, however the level of overlooking would not be beyond that acceptable for two properties exhibiting a flank to flank relationship. On balance the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be separated from the flank elevation of neighbouring 3 Coleford Close by a hedge and public footpath. As such, the proposed dwelling would not produce an overbearing impact. The proposed dwelling would be positioned north of neighbouring properties along Coleford Close and would not result in a significant loss of light. It is considered the proposed dwelling would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenities’’

9.3.2 In the interest of the amenities of adjoining properties it is recommended that the hedge positioned along the flank boundary is retained, this could be secured by way of an appropriate condition. Subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions officers are of the view that the proposal would not be prejudicial to the amenities of adjoining residential properties.

74 9.4 Impact on parking and access

9.4.1 The proposed parking and access is the same as that considered under applications SU/07/0157 & SU/07/0412. The application proposes a shared access with 1 Robert Way and subject to conditions proposed by the County Highways Authority is considered acceptable. The application site provides sufficient parking for the two dwellings and is therefore considered acceptable.

9.5 Impact on Trees

9.5.1 An Oak tree is positioned in the front garden of neighbouring 3 Coleford Bridge Road approximately 7.5 metres from the proposed dwelling. Some of the root protection area is within the application site and therefore a condition requiring the submission of tree protection measures is recommended by the Council's Arboriculturalist.

9.6 Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.6.2 The applicant has agreed to make financial contributions in accordance with the strategy and a unilateral obligation is currently being prepared. It is not necessary for an Appropriate Assessment to be completed where new development for small sites is able to mitigate in accordance with the Interim Avoidance Strategy.

9.6.3 Subject to the submission of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking to provide the financial contribution towards the SPA the development is considered to be acceptable.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 It is considered the proposed development would be sympathetic to the character andappearance of the surrounding area and would not be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining residential properties. The previous submission of the same scheme was refused because of the impact on the Special Protection Area. An SPA mitigation scheme has been approved by the Council. Therefore, the previous reason for refusing the application has now been overcome.

10 2008/0791 Reg Date 13/08/2008 Frimley Green

LOCATION: 221 FRIMLEY GREEN ROAD, FRIMLEY GREEN, CAMBERLEY, GU16 6LA PROPOSAL: Proposed Change of Use of existing premises from A1 (Retail) to A3 (Restaurant) usage, to include ventilation unit. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr Carmine Lanzetta OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The site is located within the settlement area of Frimley Green along the Frimley Green Road. The premises is currently used as a shop selling fire places, with off road parking to the site front.

1.2 The main considerations for this application are impact on residential amenity, the character and appearance of the area, parking and highway safety.

1.3 There is no policy objection to the change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant) within this location and it is not considered that the development would be detrimental to the character of the area or highway safety. However, insufficient information has been provided to ascertain the impact of the ventilation system on the amenities of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to noise and odours. The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. In the absence of sufficient supporting information for the ventilation system, demonstrating that noise and odour emissions would be within acceptable levels, it cannot be proved that the change of use to A3 (restaurant) would not be unacceptably harmful to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, by way of noise and odour disturbance. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S6 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control and PPG24: Planning and Noise.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Relevant planning history

3.2 Consultation responses and representations

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The site comprises a two and a half storey semi-detached retail property of brick construction, with pitched pantiled roof. There is a flat roof dormer window in the rear roof slope, with single storey flat roof extension and additional detached outbuildings within the rear garden. To the south side of the property is a flat roofed detached garage with off street parking to the front of the premises.

76 4.2 The adjoining semi-detached property is currently vacant but was formerly used as a florists.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/87/0692 Change of use from retail to mixed retail and coffee/tearoom use - Approved 03.11.1987.

5.2 SU/01/0042 Erection of a single storey rear/side extension to be used as ancillary storage/office (retrospective) - Approved 06.04.2001.

5.3 SU/01/0041 Display of a non - illuminated fascia sign board on side elevation - Refused 02.03.2001.

5.4 SU/01/0712 Display of a non - illuminated fascia sign board on side elevation - Refused 19.10.2001 - Dismissed at Appeal 28.03.2002.

5.5 SU/02/0880 Retention of three storage sheds and canopy (retrospective) - Approved 30.08.2002.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 This application proposes the change of use of the existing A1 (retail) shop selling fire places to A3 (restaurant). The development would also involve a large extraction system which would be located to the rear of the property.

6.2 The off road parking that exists to the front of the site would remain for use by the restaurant (approximately four spaces).

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway No objection (see para.9.6) Authority

7.2 Head of Environmental Objection: Limited/insufficient material provided to determine Services whether ventilation unit has potential to cause noise and/or smell nuisance.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report five letters of objection had been received which raise the following issues:

8.1 • Over provision of restaurants in the area (para.9.3)

• Noise impact (para.9.4)

• Odours from the restaurant and bins (para.9.4)

• Insufficient car parking for staff and visitors (para.9.6)

• Highway safety (para.9.6)

77 • Visual intrusion of the illuminated signage (para.9.6)

• Danger of vermin being present whenever large quantities of food is being used/stored (The safe storage of food is covered by Environmental Health legislation and is therefore not a material planning consideration).

• Additional litter problems (Disposal of litter and refuse is covered by Environmental Health legislation and is therefore not a material planning consideration)

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The site is located within the settlement area of Frimley Green, as such policies G4, M7, M8 and S6 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies LO1, DN2, DN3 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national advice contained within PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control and PPG24: Planning and Noise are also relevant.

9.2 Having regard to the above policies it is considered the main planning issues to be addressed are:

• The principle of A3 restaurant use in this location;

• Impact on residential amenity;

• Whether the proposal is harmful to the character and vitality of the area; and

• Parking and highway safety

9.3 The principle of A3 restaurant use in this location

9.3.1 Policy S6: Proposals for A3 uses, of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) states that "changes of use of premises to A3 will be assessed with regard to the following criteria:

(a) Whether the proposed use (individually or cumulatively with others) is prejudicial to the character, function and amenities of the area;

(b) Whether the proposed use (individually or cumulatively with others) would be likely to lead to a significant adverse effect on the occupiers of any neighbouring residential premises by reason of increase in noise and disturbance;

9.3.2 It is considered that the principle of a change of use from A1 (retail to A3 (restaurant) in this location would be acceptable and would not be prejudicial to the character, function and amenities of the area. Further it would not adversely affect conditions of highway safety (see para.9.6).

9.3.3 There are concerns on the basis of part (b) of the above policy and they are discussed in more depth under paragraph 9.4.

9.4 Impact on residential amenity

9.4.1 It is considered that whilst the principle of the proposed change of use may be acceptable concern has been raised with regard to the ventilation system at the rear of the property.

The ventilation unit is quite sizeable and as such is likely to have an impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, particularly with regard to noise and odours.

9.4.2 Despite requests for further technical information regarding the ventilation system, especially in relation to noise and odour emissions, the applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the system would not have a negative impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

9.4.3 On this basis it has not been demonstrated that the development could be implemented without causing unacceptable harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties by way of noise and odour disturbance, contrary to part (b) of Local Plan Policy S6. Environmental Services has also raised an objection to the application for this reason.

9.5 Impact on the character and vitality of the area

9.5.1 The proposal involves minor changes to the external appearance of the property and it is not considered that the change of use from retail to restaurant would be materially harmful to the vitality of the area or to the character and appearance of it. It is therefore considered that the development would preserve the existing character and appearance of the area and enhance its vitality.

9.6 Parking and highway safety

9.6.1 The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal and has indicated that in their view there is sufficient on street parking along Frimley Green Road and along Beresford Close to meet the needs of local businesses and residents.

9.6.2 With regard to the accessibility of the site, the County Highway Authority has made the following comment:- "in combination with the parking available on site and on street, it is not considered that the development would pose a danger to existing highway users. In addition the car parking provision for the proposal accords with the maximum parking standards for Surrey". County Highways has raised no objection to the proposed development on these grounds.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 Whilst it is accepted that the principle of the change of use from A1 (retail) to A3 (restaurant) would be acceptable, in policy terms, it is considered that in the absence of sufficient supporting information to demonstrate that the ventilation system would not create unacceptable levels of noise and odour to be emitted the Local Planning Authority cannot fully assess the impact the development would have on the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

11 2008/0811 Reg Date 03/09/2008 Mytchett/Deepcut

LOCATION: 85 - 93 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, CAMBERLEY, GU16 6QP PROPOSAL: Erection of eight 3 bedroom and two 2 bedroom houses following demolition of existing garage and workshops, office and flats with access onto Woodend Road and Mainstone Close. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Broomhurst Ltd OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This planning application relates to the redevelopment of Deepcut Garage to provide a residential development comprising eight three bedroom and two, two bedroom houses with associated on site car parking.

1.2 The site falls within the settlement area of Deepcut and would replace an existing two storey building, with accommodation in the roof as well as associated single and two storey buildings to the rear of the site. Whilst the main use is garage and workshop (Class B2, General Industrial) there is also B1 office space and seven flats within the site identified for redevelopment

1.3 The main issues examined in the report are:

• The principle of development;

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

• impact of the proposal on residential amenity;

• highway/parking issues; and

• impact of the proposal on the SPA.

1.4 It is considered that the application would significantly improve the character and appearance of the area and would be more conducive to the predominantly residential area. Therefore subject to a Unilateral Undertaking being provided to mitigate against the impact of the development on the SPA it is recommended that this application be approved.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1. Defer and Delegate and subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure mitigation in accordance with the Councils adopted Special Protection Area Interim Avoidance Strategy dated 29th August 2008, at no cost to the Council, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

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

2. The development hereby approved shall not commence until surface water drainage details, including an implementation programme has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the agreed works shall be carried out prior to first occupation and retained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control, Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy G17 Surface Water Run Off and PPS 25 Development and Flood Risk.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

4. Before the development hereby permitted is commenced details and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to include, brick, tile, guttering, fenestration. Once approved the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

5. Before first occupation of the development hereby approved the windows shown as obscured glazed on plans 2684/03, 2684/05 and 2684/06 shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and retained as such at all times.

6. The construction of the development hereby approved, including the operation of any plant and machinery shall not be carried out on the site except between the hours of 8am and 7pm on weekdays and 8am and 1pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays and Public Holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt ‘Public Holidays’ include New Years Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, May Day, all Bank Holidays, Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupants and to accord with Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE1 Natural Resources and Pollution Control.

81 fences, access features, the existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

8. Prior to the commencement of development a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:

(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management)

(e) provision of boundary hoarding

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no extensions, alterations to the roofs or other buildings shall be erected to and within plots 1-10 without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policy H18 Residential Development in Settlement Areas and Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (AS SAVED), Policy SE4 Design and Quality of Development.

. Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The development hereby permitted respects the scale, pattern and character of surrounding development and respects the character of the area and quality of the street scene.

2. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to an adverse impact on the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties such as to justify refusing the application.

3. The development hereby permitted would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

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

3. Residential Development in Settlement Areas. Development Control Guidelines. Supplementary Planning Guidance 2002.

4. PPS 3 Housing.

5. PPG 13 Transport.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

3. Demolition of existing bldg DF7

4. New Dwellings DS2

5. Repair of Highway Verges DS4

6. Standards for landscaping DT3

7. Stds for screen walls and fencing DT4

8. Landscape scheme (no paving) DT6

9. Drainage-Thames Water Utilities ID1

10. Drainage-Grnd Water from Streams etc ID12

11. Drainage-Use of Soakaways ID16

Recommendation 2. In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not complete within three months of the date of this Committee, the Authority will undertake an Appropriate Assessment and if the Authority is then unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames basin Heaths Special protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) then the application shall be Refused for the following reasons:

83 integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994 applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48 (5) of the 1994 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation and representation responses.

3.2 Relevant planning history as set out in Para 5.0.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The 0.21ha site is located on the corner of Deepcut Bridge Road and Woodend Road and currently comprises a two and a half storey garage and associated workshops of various construction (B2 General Industrial use), with additional buildings used as B1 offices. There are also 7 flats on the site. The above development almost covers the entire site. There is a forecourt area to the front with vehicular and pedestrian access gained from Deepcut Bridge Road. There is additional vehicular access to the workshop and other uses from Woodend Road and Mainstone Close.

4.2 To the north of the site is a free public car park. It was noted on the site visit that a number of courtesy vehicles associated with the garage were parked within the public car park. To the west are the residential properties of Mainstone Close and Woodend Road. Woodend Road properties are largely two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings, with various gable features to the front elevations. In comparison Mainstone Close dwellings comprises two storey terraced dwellings with no significant architectural detail. The properties along Deepcut Bridge Road vary in terms of their use (commercial, industrial, residential) and are two to three storeys in height. To the south east of the site is Ministry of Defence land, within the defined Countryside beyond the Green Belt, although this land is heavily screened by close boarded fencing and a dense high tree line.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

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

5.1 SU/94/0591 Change of use of part of ground floor and part of first floor from ancillary office accommodation to independent office accommodation and storage. Approved in October 1995.

5.2 SU/94/0988 Change of use of part of ground floor and part of first floor from storage and offices to vehicle inspection bay, staff rest room and office storage ancillary to the motor car body repair business operated by Deepcut Garage at 85 Deepcut Bridge Road. Approved in May 2005.

84 5.3 SU/06/0202 Certificate of Lawfulness for the existing use of the property [upper floors] as two self contained flats (85 Deepcut Bridge Road). Deemed to be lawful in October 2006.

5.4 SU/06/0203 Certificate of Lawfulness for the existing use of the property [upper floors] as three self contained flats (87 Deepcut Bridge Road). Deemed to be lawful in October 2006.

5.5 SU/06/0947 Erection of 16 two bedroom apartments and 2 two/three bedroom town houses with basement parking and surface car parking and access on to Woodend Road and Mainstone Close following demolition of existing garage and workshops – REFUSED April 2007 on SPA grounds only.

5.6 SU/07/1045 Erection of 16 two bedroom apartments and 2 two/three bedroom town houses with basement parking and surface car parking and access on to Woodend Road and Mainstone Close following demolition of existing garage and workshops – REFUSED December 2007 on SPA grounds only.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application proposes the demolition of all the existing buildings within the site . In its place it is proposed to construct eight three-bedroom and two, two-bedroom houses.

6.2 Plots 1-5 would front Deepcut Bridge Road and would comprise a terraced block of five, three bedroom houses (measuring some 23.7 metres in length and 11.2 metres in depth) at a two storey height with accommodation in the roof space.

6.3 The topography of the land rises from south to north and to accommodate the building fronting Deepcut Bridge Road the architect proposed a 'step up' at the central point. The design of the building would include a three storey gable feature to add detail and interest to the building at this point. The height of this block would be approximately 9.1 metres at the southern end and 8.7 metres at the northern end (towards the junction of Deepcut Bridge Road and Woodend Road). Each property would have a rear garden some 10 metres in length and allocated parking.

6.4 A parking area is shown at the junction of Deepcut Bridge Road and Woodend Road. This would accommodate ten vehicles, two of which are shown for disabled use. This area would be screened by proposed landscaping to the Deepcut Bridge Road elevation, but would be visible from the Woodend Road, where the access is proposed.

6.5 Plots 6-8 comprise of a row of three, three bedroom houses fronting Woodend Road. The properties would be two storeys with accommodation in the roof space. Like plots 1-5 the roof elevation fronting the street would have a roof light for a bedroom and the rear an obscure glazed dormer window for a bathroom.

6.6 The row of three houses would measure some 14.4 metres in length, 9.9 metres in depth and 9.4 metres in height. There would be one vehicle space per dwelling to the front of each plot and each would have a rear garden some 11.6 metres in length.

6.7 Plots 9-10 front Mainstone Close and are shown as a pair of two storey semi-detached houses with roof lights to the front and rear elevations. The floor plans however do not specify how the space in the roof would be used.

6.8 The pair of semis measure approximately 10.9 metres in length, 7.6 metres in depth and 9.1 metres in height. Each dwelling has one parking space to the front and a rear garden some 11 metres in length.

85 6.9 An additional five off street parking spaces are shown to the north of plot 9, along Mainstone Close, two of which are allocated for disabled persons.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway No response received. Any update will be presented orally at Authority committee.

7.2 Head of Environmental No objection Services

7.3 Natural England No objection

7.4 Arboricultural Officer No objections, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to the provision of a planting scheme.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report, one letter of support had been received which stated the following:

8.1 This business has long outgrown the premises causing road safety problems at the junction of Woodend Road and Deepcut Bridge Road and parking problems in the immediate vicinity.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 Principle of Development

9.1.1 The policies relevant to the above proposal are policies G1, G4, G5, M7, M8, E4, H18, H19 and H23 of the Surrey Heath Borough Local Plan 2000 (as saved), policies LO2 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004, Supplementary Planning Guidance for Residential Development (2002), PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, PPS3: Housing and PPG13: Transport.

9.1.2 Policy E4 of the Local Plan indicates that in locations outside of the Core Employment Areas (such as the application site), the loss of land in commercial use to other uses will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the site is unsuitably located because:

“the impact of the use and its associated activities of this site adversely affects the amenity or character of the adjoining area”.

9.1.3 The proposed development would provide a residential development on site within a predominantly residential area. The garage performs a range of functions including car body repairs and has the characteristics of a Class B2 (general industrial) use which creates noise (or other pollution) to the detriment of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby residential properties. The current proposal would result in the removal of this non- conforming commercial use. In addition, the application site is in a relatively unsustainable location for major commercial uses. The principal for the proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

9.1.4 Previous applications for the site 06/0947 and 07/1045 have sought consent for the erection of 16 two bedroom apartments and 2 two/three bedroom town houses with basement parking and surface car parking and access on to Woodend Road and 86 Mainstone Close following demolition of existing garage and workshops. These applications were fully reported to Committee and no objections were raised with regard to the principle of this development; its impact on the character of the area and trees; impact on residential amenities; or parking and access. The only reason for refusal in both instances was the inability to mitigate against the impact upon the integrity of the SPA.

9.1.5 Whilst this application represents a lower density scheme to account for the Avoidance Strategy now in place for the SPA it remains the opinion of officers that the wider impacts of the development in terms of the character of the area, residential amenity and highway safety remain unchanged. In fact the lower density (48 dwellings per hectare) is considered to enable an improved layout for the units and the on site parking, whilst still conforming to the minimum density requirements detailed in PPS3: Housing.

9.2 Impact on Character of the Area

9.2.1 Policy H18 of the Local Plan indicates that proposals for residential development within the defined settlement areas should seek to achieve the highest density having regard to a set of criteria including:

"The character and quality of the streetscene, taking into account:

(i) the contribution the application site currently makes; and

(ii) the contribution the proposal will make if implemented..."

9.2.2 In light of the existing level of use for the site, which now amounts to an overdevelopment of the site it is considered that the proposal would offer significant improvements to the character and appearance of the area.

9.2.3 The two and a half storey development would be in keeping with the existing built form of the site and that of buildings further to the south. The design of block 1-5 provides architectural detail and it is considered that the central gable element helps to break down the bulk of the building. It should also be noted that this element has been reduced by a whole storey from applications 06/0947 and 07/1045.

9.2.4 The smaller development to Woodend Road would be separated from existing residential development by Mainstone Close. It is considered that this separation requires the development to integrate with both the Deepcut Bridge Road development and that of Woodend Road, providing a transition with a more unique appearance. The pitched roofing with accommodation in the roof space reflects that of the development fronting Deepcut Bridge Road whilst the reduced scale is more in keeping with that of Woodend Road.

9.2.5 The pair of semi-detached dwellings would be located in the small cul-de-sac of Mainstone Close, which is characterised by a row of six terraced housings of simple construction and appearance. In light of the limited residential development within Mainstone Close the introduction of two additional properties is considered to be appropriate, both in terms of visual appearance and the level of use that would be generated from the two properties.

9.2.6 It is considered that the development as proposed would provide a development that is more conducive with the surrounding area, whilst improving its visual appearance and overall character to the benefit of this small settlement area.

9.3 Impact on Residential Amenity

9.3.1 Policy H18 of the Local Plan indicates that proposals for residential development within the defined settlement areas should take into account:

"The relationship of the existing and new built form(s) taking into account:

(i) new development should not have an adverse impact on the level of privacy of neighbouring properties; and

(ii) new development should not materially affect the amount of sunlight or daylight available to neighbouring properties;...."

9.3.2 The redevelopment of the site in the manner proposed would have a lower density level than that of previous considered applications 06/0947 and 07/1045, which were both deemed not to have harmful impacts upon the amenities of neighbours. It is therefore considered that as this proposal is similar in layout to both of these applications, albeit at a reduced scale, that this proposal would not be unacceptably harmful in terms of overlooking, overbearing effect and overshadowing.

9.3.3 In addition to the above it is believed that the redevelopment of this primarily industrial site would improve the living conditions of neighbouring residents and is more compatible with the surrounding area.

9.4 Parking and Access

9.4.1 The proposal would provide two parking spaces per residential unit, which accords with the maximum parking standards for Surrey. In addition there is a public car park on the northern side of Woodend Road at its junction with Deepcut Bridge Road.

9.4.2 The change of use from B2 General Industrial to C3 Dwellinghouses is considered to reduce the level of vehicular movement to and from the site, which is considered to improve highway safety.

9.4.3 Any adverse comments from the County Highway Authority will be reported verbally at the meeting.

9.5 Impact on Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.5.1 The site is located between 1 and 2 km from the Thames Basin Heath SPA and as such the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 apply. It is the role of the competent authority, in this case Surrey Heath Borough Council, to establish whether the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA.

9.5.2 The current proposal would result in a net increase of dwellings. In assessing the previous schemes Natural England objected to the proposal by reason of its impact, in combination with other developments, on the integrity of the SPA. At both times the mitigation measures proposed were unacceptable and there was not in any event an agreed mitigation strategy for the Borough.

9.5.3 In July 2008 the Special Protection Area - Interim Avoidance Strategy was adopted, which states that: "New development will be required to make financial contributions toward SANGS, monitoring and access management measures. In addition, contributions may also be used to fund the staffing costs for monitoring and administration either within the Borough Council or by a joint body to oversee parts or all of this work. Monitoring will include surveys to be undertaken in future to check visitor numbers to SANGS and the SPA.

Contributions will be updated on an annual basis to reflect increased costs or works. Where a development site is entirely self mitigating on a private SANGS within site then contributions will be required to the non- SANGS element. Where a developments are seeking to contribute to a SANGS controlled by a third party all contributions must be paid to the Borough Council who will release funds to the third party as the works are 88 undertaken to the SANGS. This will ensure that the Council fulfils its duty as competent authority to ensure that avoidance measures are provided to the required standard and that monies are available for access management and monitoring.

As at July 2008 a contribution of £3,500 per dwelling will be sought".

9.5.4 Subject to the completion of an appropriate legal agreement to secure the mitigation contribution, no objection is raised to the proposal in respect to the Special Protection Area.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 In light of the above information it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of character and appearance of the area, residential amenity and highway safety. However, with regard to the Special Protection Area it is recommended that provided an appropriate legal agreement is completed to secure funding for mitigation in accordance with the Council's adopted Special Protection Area Interim Avoidance Strategy, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planing permission. If however an appropriate agreement is not completed within three months of the date of this Committee the application should be refused.

12 2008/0848 Reg Date 28/08/2008 St. Michaels

LOCATION: HOMEBASE, 560 LONDON ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3UF PROPOSAL: Change of Use of section of car park to car washing & valeting facility. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr R Shala F S Partnership OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full retrospective application proposes the change of use of 8 spaces within the existing car park to provide a Car Wash and Valeting facility. No operational development is proposed however the application includes the siting of a storage container adjacent to the car washing area and a gazebo has also been erected on the site.

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

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

• The loss of car parking and the impact of the development on highway safety

• The drainage of the site and the control of surface water run off

1.3 This report concludes that the development proposed would not materially impact on the character or the appearance of the area and would not impact on the landscape character of the London Road. The application would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and would retain a sufficient level of car parking to serve the existing Superstore. Notwithstanding this, the development would result in contaminated water entering the local ground and surface water system and would be detrimental to the water quality in the area.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Defer and Delegate, and subject to no additional issues being raised by consultees within the statutory period, the Head of Built Environment be authorised to Refuse the application for the following reason:

1. The development proposed does not include an appropriate drainage system to ensure that all contaminated water is discharged to a foul sewer. Consequently, the development proposed would result in contaminated water entering the ground and surface water system which would enter the local watercourses and would be detrimental to water quality. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy G16 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy SE1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts national guidance contained in PPG23.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation response

90 4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The 0.18ha site comprises a section of the car park of the Homebase superstore on the north side of the A30 close to the Meadows Roundabout. The site includes 8 car parking spaces adjacent to the A30 and also includes the circulation areas within the car park which link the site to the public highway network at Tank Road.

4.2 The application site crosses the borough boundary and part of the site falls within the administrative area of Bracknell Forest Borough Council.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 There is no planning history directly relevant to this proposal.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the change of use of 8 spaces within the existing car park to provide a car wash and valeting facility. No operational development is proposed however the application includes the siting of a storage container adjacent to the car washing area and a gazebo has also been erected on the site.

6.2 The application is retrospective and the use of the site for car washing has commenced.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway Authority No objection to the development.

7.2 Head of Environmental No objection to the development. Services

7.3 Thames Water No objection to the development.

7.4 Environment Agency Comment. The proposal has the potential to pollute the local watercourses, including the Wish Stream which emerges close to this site. The development must be effectively drained to ensure that no pollution enters the local watercourse.

7.5 SHBC Project (Drainage) Objection. The surface water on the site has direct Engineer connection to a nearby watercourse and on into the Blackwater River and would be subject to pollution form the proposed use.

7.6 Bracknell Forest No response has been received at time of writing. A verbal update will be provided to the Committee.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 No representations had been received at the time of preparation of this report.

91 9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan and is also adjacent to a Green Corridor. As such policies G4, G16, G23, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies SE1, SE4, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national advice contained in PPS1, PPS23 and PPS25 are also relevant.

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

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

• The loss of car parking and the impact of the development on highway safety

• The drainage of the site and the control of surface water run off

9.3 The impact of the development on the character and the appearance of the area

9.3.1 The application proposes the use of part of the existing car park as a car wash and valeting facility. The application includes the siting of a storage container, however, no operational development is proposed. The application site also currently contains a gazebo used in connection with the proposed use. Whilst the gazebo does not form part of the application, the erection of temporary structures including the gazebo could be controlled by condition if permission was granted.

9.3.2 The development proposed would have only a minimal impact on the appearance of the site and would not materially impact on the character or the appearance of the wider area. The development would be screened from the London Road by the vegetation which marks the boundary. Glimpses, however, would be visible from the London Road, but it is considered that this would not impact on the landscape character of this designated Green Corridor.

9.4 The loss of car parking and the impact of the development on highway safety

9.4.1 The development proposed would result in the loss of 8 car parking spaces which currently serve the Homebase superstore. These 8 spaces represent only a very small proportion of the total level of car parking which serves the superstore and it is considered that a sufficient level of off street car parking would be retained. As such no objection to the proposal could be sustained on these grounds.

9.4.2 The development would be accessed from Tank Road, through the existing car park. It is not considered that the development would materially increase the vehicle movements to the site and the County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the development on highway safety, capacity or policy grounds.

9.5 The drainage of the site and the control of surface water run off

9.5.1 The proposed use will be drained to the existing surface water system which drains the existing car park. Part of the car parks surface water drainage channel crosses the site and this channel is the only method proposed for the drainage of the site. The Councils Project Engineer has advised that the surface water system has a direct connection to a nearby watercourse which leads on into the Backwater River. The surface water system proposed to serve the use makes no provision for the removal of the soap or the chemicals used in the car washing process and as such the use would result in the pollution of the local watercourses. As such the proposal is contrary to policy G16 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policy SE1 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 (as saved) and conflicts with the national guidance contained in PPG23.

92 9.6 Other Issues

9.6.1 The application site is located a significant distance from residential properties and it is not considered that the development would have an adverse impact on residential amenity.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The development proposed would not materially impact on the character or the appearance of the area and would not impact on the landscape character of the London Road. The application would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety and would retain a sufficient level of car parking to serve the existing Superstore. Notwithstanding this, the development would result in contaminated water entering the local ground and surface water system and would be detrimental to the water quality in the area.