Surrey Heath Borough Council Planning

SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of the Executive Head of Regulatory Services to be considered at the meeting held on

25 September 2013

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

NOTES

Officers Report

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

• Site Description • Relevant Planning History • The Proposal • Consultation Responses/Representations • Planning Considerations • Conclusion

Each report also includes a recommendation to either approve or refuse the application. Recommended reason(s) for refusal or condition(s) of approval and reason(s) including informatives are set out in full in the report.

How the Committee makes a decision:

The Planning Applications Committee’s decision on an application can be based only on planning issues. These include:

• Legislation, including national planning policy guidance and statements. • Policies in the adopted Surrey Heath Local Plan and emerging Local Development Framework, including Supplementary Planning Documents. • Sustainability issues. • Layout and design issues, including the effect on the street or area (but not loss of private views). • Impacts on countryside openness. • Effect on residential amenities, through loss of light, overlooking or noise disturbance. • Road safety and traffic issues. • Impacts on historic buildings. • Public opinion, where it raises relevant planning issues.

The Committee cannot base decisions on:

• Matters controlled through other legislation, such as Building Regulations e.g. structural stability, fire precautions. • Loss of property value. • Loss of views across adjoining land. • Disturbance from construction work. • Competition e.g. from a similar retailer or business. • Moral issues . • Need for development or perceived lack of a need (unless specified in the report). • Private issues between neighbours i.e. boundary disputes, private rights of way. The issue of covenants has no role in the decision to be made on planning applications.

Reports will often refer to specific use classes. The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995 (as amended) is summarised for information below: A1. Shops Shops, retail warehouses, hairdressers, undertakers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops and funeral directors. A2. Financial & professional Banks, building societies, estate and Services employment agencies, professional and financial services and betting offices. A3. Restaurants and Cafes For the sale of food and drink for consumption on the premises – restaurants, snack bars and cafes. A4. Drinking Establishments Public houses, wine bars or other drinking establishments (but not nightclubs). A5. Hot Food Takeaways For the sale of hot food consumption off the premises. B1. Business Offices, research and development, light industry appr opriate to a residential area. B2. General Industrial Use for the carrying on of an industrial process other than one falling within class B1 above. B8. Storage or Distribution Use for the storage or as a distribution centre including open air storage. C1. Hotels Hotels, board and guest houses where, in each case no significant element of care is provided. C2. Residential Institutions Residential care homes, hospitals, nursing homes, boarding schools, residential colleges and training centres. C2A. Secure Residential Use for a provision of secure residential Institutions accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks. C3. Dwelling houses Family houses or houses occupied by up to six residents living together as a single household, including a household where care is provided for residents. C4. Houses in Multiple Small shared dwelling houses occupied by Occupation between three and six unrelated individuals, as their only or main residence, who share basic amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom. D1. Non-residential Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, Institutions day centres, school, art galleries, museums, libraries, halls, places of worship, church halls, law courts. Non-residential education and training areas. D2. Assembly & Leisure Cinemas, music and concert halls, bingo and dance halls (but not nightclubs), swimming baths, skating rinks, gymnasiums or sports arenas (except for motor sports, or where firearms are used). Sui Generis Theatres, houses in multiple paying occupation, hostels providing no significant element of care, scrap yards, garden centres, petrol filling stations and shops selling and/or displaying motor vehicles, retail warehouse clubs, nightclubs, laundrettes, dry cleaners, taxi businesses, amusement centres and casinos.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE INDEX

WARD LOCATION APPLICATION NO ITEM NO PAGE NO

CHO 24A HIGH STREET, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8AA 2013/0018 01 1

STM ADMIRAL HOUSE, 193-199 LONDON ROAD, 2013/0084 02 5 CAMBERLEY, GU15 3JS

MYT 45 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, 2013/0315 03 18 CAMBERLEY, GU16 6QT

FRI CHILDRENS CENTRE, 5 CHURCH ROAD, FRIMLEY, 2013/0374 04 25 CAMBERLEY, GU16 7AD

BAG LAND AT PENNYHILL PARK HOTEL AND SPA, 2013/0447 05 52 LONDON ROAD, BAGSHOT, GU19 5EU

WAT 14 BRACKENDALE ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2JN 2013/0484 06 57

TOW 34 COLLEGE RIDE, CAMBERLEY, GU15 4JS 2013/0564 07 67

01 2013/0018 Reg Date 25/03/2013 Chobham

LOCATION: 24A HIGH STREET, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8AA PROPOSAL: Replacement of 5 timber sash windows. (Amended plans rec'd 12/08/2013) TYPE: Listed Building Consent (Alter/Extend) APPLICANT: Mr Andrew Belcher Belcher Properties Ltd OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application site is on the east side of High Street in the village centre of Chobham. The application property is a residential flat situated above a retail unit within a terrace of similar properties. The application property is white rendered and f orms part of a wider group of Grade II listed buildings within the High Street.

1.2 The application is for Listed Building Consent and therefore the only relevant assessment to be made in the determination of this application is whether the proposed alter ations would harm the significance or special interest of this designated Heritage Asset.

1.3 The report concludes that the replacement windows proposed would not harm the significance of this Listed Building and accordingly the proposal complies with the objectives of Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and complies with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT Listed Building Consent subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development for which Listed Building Consent is hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Section 18(1) (a) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 52(4) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The replacement windows, hereby approved, shall be constructed in materials to match those of the existing windows.

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

3. The proposed development shall be implemented in accordance with the following approved drawings:

North Side Elevation 1 Rear Elevation 2 (East Elevation Courtyard) South Side Elevation 2 Option 1: Proposed New Double Glazed Sashes Box Frame Overview 1

Box Frame Cross Section Sash Cross Section

unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

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 on the east side of High Street in the village centre of Chobham. The application property is a residential flat which situated above a retail unit within a terrace of similar properties. The application property is white rendered and forms part of a wider group of Grade II listed buildings within the High Street. The application site is also located within the Chobham Conservation Area.

4.2 The property is served by a shared rear access beyond which is a garage court, with residential properties further beyond.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/2011/0557 Listed Building Consent for the installation of three replacement windows.

Granted (24/11/2011)

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application seeks Listed Building Consent for the replacement of 5 windows within the first floor of the building. The proposed new un its would be double glassed timber windows with glazing bars and would appear as a like for like replace for the existing windows.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Parish Council No objection to the proposal. 2

7.2 Historic Buildings Officer No objection t o the alterations proposed, details are the same as was approved elsewhere on this building.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

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

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within Chobham village centre, is within the Chobham Conservation Area and is also a Grade II Listed Building. Accordingly Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 (CSDMP) is relevant to the considera tion of this application. The guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a material consideration.

9.2 The application is for Listed Building Consent and therefore the only relevant assessment to be made in the determinat ion of this application is whether the proposed alterations would harm the significance or special interest of this designated Heritage Asset.

9.3 The application building dates from C18 and forms part of a group of buildings dating from the same period. The building has a white rendered front elevation with the remainder of the building finished in brickwork which has been painted white. The building includes attractive timber sash windows and a shop front however these are not original and are later C2 0 replacements. The Historic Buildings Officer has confirmed that the windows to be removed are modern replacements and there is no objection in principle to their replacement. Furthermore he advises there is no objection to the use of these thin double glazing units, in addition it is noted that identical windows have been installed in other parts of this building under Listed Building Consent application SU/2011/0557.

9.4 Having regard to the above it is considered that the replacement windows proposed would not harm the significance or special interest of this Listed Building and accordingly the proposal complies with the objectives of Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The replacement windows proposed would not harm the significance of this Listed Building and accordingly the proposal complies with the objectives of Policy DM17 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

02 2013/0084 Reg Date 19/08/2013 St. Michaels

LOCATION: ADMIRAL HOUSE, 193-199 LONDON ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3JS PROPOSAL: Change of Use from Offices (B1) to form 11 one bedroom flats and 24 two bedroom flats with modification to the roof of the western part of the building and associated alterations. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Admiral JV OFFICER: Kate Baughan

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This full application proposes the change of use from Offices (B1) to form 11 one bedroom and 24 two bedroom flats, together with the modification of the roof of the western wing of the building and other associated alterations.

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

• The principle of the change of use;

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

• The impact of the development upon residential amenities;

• The level of parking and the impact upon highway safety;

• Affordable housing provision;

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

• The impact of the development upon local infrastructure.

1.3 This report concludes that whilst the proposed development would fail to accord with the objectives of Policies CP5 and CP12 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, in addition to guidance contained within the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2011, an almost identical scheme could be implemented under Class J of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2013 (as amended) without the need to make contributions towards affordable housing or infrastructure (notwithstanding contributions in respect to highways improvements). Given that Officers consider that the scheme meets the requirements of all other applicable Policies and offers wider benefits to amenity than what would be achievable u nder permitted development, Officers do not consider that the lack of affordable housing or infrastructure contributions should warrant the refusal of the current application. As such subject to the completion of legal undertakings in relation to Special P rotection Area mitigation and to secure Planning Infrastructure Contributions towards highways improvements (if necessary), one working day before the expiry date of the application (18 th November), it is recommended that the application be approved.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1 :

To Defer and Delegate, and that subject to the completion of a suitable obligation to secure the following: • A satisfactory legal agreement to secure mitigation in accordance with the Council's adopted Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012) one working day prior to the application expiry date of 18 th November 2013, and at no cost to the Council.

• A satisfactory legal obligation to secure contributions towards highway improvements in accordance with the Council's Tariff Scheme and Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document, by one working day prior to the application expiry date of 18 th November 2013 and at no cost to the Council.

The Executive Head of Regulatory Services to be authorised to APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:

DEFER and delegate for Executive Head of Regulatory Services

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

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

2. No development shall take place until details and samples of the externa l materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 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 Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

3. Prior to the commencement of development full details of window and ventilation specifications to be installed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details will be expected to be in accordance with the scheme of work detailed within the acoustic report (Ref: AIRO Reprt Nos. SRB/6676 dated 15th January 2013. Once approved the development shall be completed in acco rdance with the approved details and be retained as such at all times.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupants and to accord with the NPPF.

4. No development shall take place until a scheme detailing measures to reduce the potential for crime within the undercroft area has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the scheme shall be

constructed in accordance with the approved details and implemented prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of residential and visual amenities and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved on site details of refuse storage area(s) and access thereto are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved the details shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter retained.

Reason: To ensure visual and residential amenities are not prejudiced and to accord with Policies DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

6. No development shall take place until full details of 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 pr ior to first occupation. The scheme shall include indication of all existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

7. No development shall take place 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 (f) hours of construction

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

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 CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: T004 P0, L201 P0, L203 P0, L200 P0, L202 P1, L100 P1, L102 P1, L103 P1, L104 P0, L222 P0, L221 P0 and L220 P1, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “ Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

Recommendation 2 : In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed for mitigation towards the SPA by one working day prior to the 18 th November 2013 (the application expiry date), the Executive Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

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 Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 and Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012). In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed to mitigate the highways impact of the development in line with the Council's Tariff Scheme by one working day prior to the 18 th November 2013 (the application expiry date), the Executive Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to REFUSE this application for the following reason:

2. In the absence of a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the Developer Contributions SPD (Oct 2011) and Circular 05/2005. The proposal would therefore contribute to unacceptable additional pressure on local highways infrastructure to the detriment of the locality.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations.

3.2 Relevant planning history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The 0.2ha application site is situated in a peripheral location within Camberley Town Centre to the south eastern side of London Road, opposite the Staff College Gate entrance to the Royal Military Academy.

4.2 The application premises, which are currently vacant but have an authorised B1 (Office) use, form a detached three to five store y building with associated parking to the rear. The building exhibits a somewhat dated appearance, constructed in dark red brick with a grey mansard-style roof to the eastern wing and a gabled roof completed in brown tiling to the western wing.

4.3 A br oad mixture of commercial and residential uses can be found in close proximity to the application site, a Premier Inn Hotel (C1) bounding the site to the east and Valzan House, a former Office (B1) building subsequently extended and converted to residentia l accommodation bounding the site to the west. The rear of the site looks onto the residential element of the ‘Atrium’ development, with the ground floor element providing access to a multi-storey car park and service area.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/79/0836 Demolish existing house etc. and erect 3-4 storey offices, and 2 storey shops. Approved 15 th October 1979

5.2 SU/82/0135 Details pursuant to SU/79/0836 (Offices). Approved 19 th April 1982.

5.3 SU/82/0135/A Amendment. Alterations to fenestration at roof level and enlargement of lift rooms and plant room. Alts to fenestration and finishing approved 3 rd May 1983. Alts to lift and plant rooms refused 3 rd May 1983.

5.4 SU/82/0135/B Alterations to lift motor room , small boiler room and water tanks area. Approved 12 th December 1983.

5.5 SU/82/0135/C Alterations to comprise small extension to rear lobby, inclusion of louvres in plant room for ventilation and formation of doors in east (side) elevation for access to gas meter housing. Approved 21 st June 1985.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of Admiral House, a vacant Office (B1) building, to form 11 one bedroom flats and 24 two bedroom flats, together with the modification of the roof of the western wing of the building and other associated alterations.

6.2 The modific ation of the roof of the western part of the building would entail the replacement of the existing gabled roof with a mansard style roof matching in height and design that provided to the eastern part of the building. The roof in its revised form would be no higher than that it replaces and would not facilitate the provision of any additional internal floor space over the size of the existing building, with the proposed works to the roof facilitating the provision of a shared external roof terrace of 67.9m² to the rear.

6.3 Associated alterations proposed comprise the partial cladding of the property frontage, the insertion of windows, the formation of balconies and the enlargement of some existing openings serving the premises.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway No objections. Authority

7.2 Environmental Health Comment.

7.3 Head of Planning Policy No comments at the time of writing, formal comments will be and Conservation updated orally to the Committee.

7.4 Crime Reduction Advisor Comment.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report, three letters have been received in objection to the proposed development, raising the following issues:

8.1 The proposal represents an over development of the site (please see Paragraph 9.4.3);

8.2 The proposed extension works would impact upon the degree of light available to the occupants of flats at The Atrium (please see Paragraph 9.5.2);

8.3 The construction works and future occupants will increase noise associated with the premises [Officer comment: it is not envisaged that the proposed works would result in noise levels exceeding that normally expected from construction works and the resulti ng residential use]

8.4 The proposed development would increase anti-social behaviour associated with the proposed development [Officer comment: by bringing the application site back into use, it is likely that the proposed scheme would reduce anti-socia l behaviour associated with the application site. Notwithstanding this, please refer to the Crime Reduction Advisor’s comments in Paragraph 9.5.5]

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is situated within Camberley Town Centre as defined o n the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. Accordingly, saved Policies TC2, TC4 and TC17 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 are of relevance, in addition to Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP12 , CP14, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework. Limited weight should also be attached to Policies TC4, TC5, TC7, TC8 and TC11 of the Camb erley Town Centre Area Action Plan Proposed Submission Document.

9.2 In light of the above it is considered that the main issues to be addressed in determining this application are:

• The principle of the change of use;

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

• The impact of the development upon residential amenities;

• The level of parking and the impact upon highway safety;

• Affordable housing provision;

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

• The impact of the development upon local infrastructure.

9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 The application site is situated within the settlemen t area of Frimley and Camberley as defined on the Policies Map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and within the settlement area, the principle of residential development is generally acceptable. Notwithstanding this , it is noted that this proposal relates to the conversion of an office within Camberley Town Centre and therefore, consideration must be given to whether the principle of the loss of employment space is similarly acceptable.

9.3.2 Saved Policy TC17 of t he Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 states that where there is evidence that vacant business premises no longer meet the needs of modern business users and appear unlikely to be re-used or re-developed for that purpose, conversion to other service, leisure or residential uses will be encouraged. In a similar vein, Paragraphs 22 and 51 of the NPPF state:

Para 22 “ Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities”.

Para 51 “ [Local Planning Authorities] should normally approve p lanning applications for change to residential use and any associated development from commercial buildings (currently in B use classes) where there is an identified need for additional housing in that area, provided that t here are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate”.

9.3.3 Some limited weight should also be attached to Policy TC5 of the Camberley Town Centre Area Action Plan Proposed (AAP) Submission Document which identifies that de velopment resulting in the loss of business floor space outside of the Knoll Road commercial area will be acceptable where it achieves other AAP objectives and where it would not prejudice the role of the of the town centre as a centre for employment.

A r eport prepared on behalf of the Applicant by DB Real Estate advises that Admiral House has remained largely unoccupied since 2006 despite attempts to market the premises with incentives from that time; it is contended that the premises have not been taken up owing to their location, age and the prevalence of more modern premises being readily available in the area. Officers consider that it has been adequately demonstrated that there is no 11

reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment purposes a nd that, by bringing a redundant building back into life and contributing to housing supply in the town centre, the scheme would broadly contribute to wider objectives of the Camberley Town Centre AAP.

9.3.4 Further to the above, it must be recognised that for a period of three years, between 30 May 2013 and 30 May 2016, it will be permitted development to change the use of an office to residential use, subject to a developer applying to the Local Planning Aut hority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the Authority will be required as to—

(a) Transport and highways impacts of the development;

(b) Contamination risks on the site; and,

This permitted developme nt right makes no provision for extension works and as such it is recognised that the scheme currently under consideration still requires planning permission. Notwithstanding this, the Applicants contend that this permitted development right forms a material fall-back position to which consideration should be given in the course of assessing this proposal. It is recognised that a similar fall-back position was employed by an Appellant in the support of a recent appeal (Ref. APP/P5870/A/13/2194046) for the c onversion of a large office block to residential accommodation with associated extensions and C3 uses in Sutton. The Inspector concluded that it had not been demonstrated that the fall-back position was a viable alternative to the appeal scheme, commenting:-

“such a scheme would be significantly different from the appeal proposal, being based on the physical characteristics of the existing building, and without the extensions which are currently proposed. The economic implications have not been explored, an d it is not possible to be certain that it would represent a physically and financially viable proposition …as such, there is no clear evidence that it represents a realistic fall-back position”

9.3.5 In the above case, it is noted that the appeal scheme was vastly different from that which could be provided under permitted development and as such the Inspector attached limited weight to the fallback position proposed by the applicant. In respect to the current case, Officers consider that the degree of we ight attached to any permitted development fallback position in the determination of the current planning application should be informed by the likelihood of a scheme being implemented under permitted development in the event that a planning application is resisted. In this particular instance it is considered that two tests can inform such a consideration. These are:

a) The capacity of the Applicant to convert the un-extended building to the same number of units and the likelihood of such a scheme being implemented in the event that the current application is resisted;

b) The likelihood of the Council determining that Prior Approval would not be required for the conversion of the un-extended building in the event that such an application was received.

With respect to the capacity of the Applicant to convert the un-extended building to the same number of units, it is f irst noted that works to provide balconies and enlarged openings are limited in nature, having little bearing on the number of units that the building can accommodate. The revision of the roof form of the western wing of the building would not increase the internal floor space of the building, facilitating instead an enhanced external amenity space. It is also noted that in a pre-application enquiry preceding this application, the Applicants demonstrated that residential accommodation could be provided in t he roof space of the western part of the building without alteration. Officers consequently recognise that the revision of the western roof form would not facilitate any additional units over what 12

could be accommodated within the building if converted with out the proposed works. It is therefore considered that the building is capable of accommodating the same number of units in an almost identical arrangement without extension or material alt eration and that on this basis, it is very likely that such a sche me would come forward under permitted development in the event that the current application is resisted.

With respect to the likelihood of the Council determining that Prior Approval would not be required for the conversion of the un-extended building in the event that such an application was received, it is noted that the site does not fall within Flood Zones 2 or 3 and does not suffer from any identified contamination risk. Furthermore, the County Highways Authority has no comments in respect to the tran sport and highways impacts of the development. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the building could in principle be converted without any prior approval being required.

9.3.6 On consideration of the above assessment, Officers conclude that the fa llback position identified by the Applicant represents a valid and viable fallback position in the event that the current application is resisted and that on this basis, significant weight should be attached to this permitted development fallback position in the determination of this planning application

9.4 The impact on the character of the application site and the surrounding area

9.4.1 The application site is situated to the southern side of London Road within Camberley town cen tre, the local area characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses. The fact that the site is located in close proximity to the town centre and the residential section of the Atrium demonstrates that residential development in this location woul d not be out of character.

9.4.2 The proposed development would bring a currently vacant site back into use and would in this respect improve the v isual appearance of the site, to the benefit of the character and appearance of the area. The addition of balconies and metal cladding would also lend the building a more modern and residential appearance, adding interest to the existing red brick façade, particularly when viewed from London Road.

9.4.3 When viewed from public vantage points on London Road, the gabled roof form of the western wing of the building currently provides a ‘stepping down’ of built form towards the neighbouring premises at Valzan House. Notwithstanding this, it is recognised that buildings in this part of London Road are generally in excess of four storeys in height and given that the roof in its extended form would match in height and design found to the eastern part of the build ing, it is not considered that the building in its extended form would represent over development or appear incongruous in this location. As such no objections are raised on character and street scene grounds.

9.5 The impact on amenities of neighbouring properties and future occupants

9.5.1 Valzan House, situated to the south west of the application site, comprises two blocks of residential accommodation, with one block fronting onto London Road and another set beyond the main frontage. It is not envisaged that the amenities of occupants of units within the London Road block would be significantly affected by the proposed development, owing to the existing built relationship between the properties.

With respect to the imp act of the proposed development upon the rear block of accommodation at Valzan House, it is not envisaged that the proposed scheme would be overbearing to, nor have any appreciable impact upon the degree of light available to the occupants of Valzan House. This is attributed to the built relationship between the buildings, with the proposed works to the roof form of the western part of Admiral House being set some 17 metres northward of this neighbouring accommodation and being no higher than the roof form to be replaced. It is recognised that a moderately awkward pattern of 13

overlooking would arise between windows serving units within the rear block of Valzan House and windows within the rear and west flank elevations of Admiral House, with a minimum window-to-window separation of 13 metres. This is however an existing built relationship and it is also recognised that the rear block of accommodation at Valzan House is already significantly overlooked by the front block of accommodation at the same site. It is not therefore envisaged that the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the occupants of accommodation to the rear of Valzan House would be affected to such a degree as to warrant the refusal of the current application. It is also prudent to note that the conversion of the existing un-extended building could take place without planning consent and in such an instance the associated impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties would be broadly similar.

9.5.2 Admiral House in its converted form would remain set in excess of 41 metres from properties at The Atrium, with the extended part of the proposal set in excess of 55 metres from properties at the Atrium. On consideration of this built relationship and the position of the premises to the north of The Atrium development, it is not envisaged that the scheme would have any significant detrimental impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of these neighbouring properties.

9.5.3 In respect of the amenities of future oc cupants, it is noted that a number of proposed units situated at lower levels in the south easternmost part of the building may not receive particularly high levels of natural light, owing to the built relationship with the neighbouring hotel to the east. It is also noted that a slightly awkward pattern of overlooking would exist between some proposed units. It is however recognised that future occupants would be aware of these possible constraints and would be able to make a conscious decision as to whethe r or not the proximity of these buildings would be harmful. Furthermore, it is not considered that these elements of the scheme should form a reason for withholding planning permission, given that the same units could be provided under permitted development.

9.5.4 Works to the roof form of the western wing of the building would facilitate the provision of a shared external amenity area of 67.9m² and a handful of other units would benefit from private amenity space or balconies. Such a degree of amenity space is considered appropriate for the scheme proposed and would be significantly greater than could be expected to come forward through a permitted development scheme. It has to be recognised that this is a town centr e location where a higher density of built form and opportunities for providing amenity space are more limited. The fact, therefore, that the applicant has provided amenity space must weigh in favour of this scheme.

9.5.5 The Council's Crime Reduction Ad visor has made a number of recommendations in order to ensure that the potential for crime and the fear of crime is reduced to an acceptable level, including the appropriate lighting of undercroft parking, and the retention of a barrier access to the rear parking area. Subject to the application of appropriate conditions securing these items, it is considered that the proposed development would accord with the principles of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. 9.5.6 The application proposes the introduction of a noise sensitive residential use near to the London Road. The Applicant has therefore submitted a noise survey and report. With respect to the details submitted, the Councils Environmental Health Officer comments:

“The proposed site will be exposed to noise from road traffic. I am satisfied that the noise received internally can be reduced to acceptable levels throughout with the provision of suitable acoustic glazing and alternative means of ventilation”

The Councils Environmental Health Officer has confirme d that, subject to compliance with an appropriate condition securing the works identified above, the proposed development would not result in levels of noise and disturbance that would be so harmful to the amenities 14

of future occupiers of the property as to warrant refusal of planning permission. 9.5.7 On consideration of the points discussed above, it is not envisaged that the proposal would conflict with the residential amenity requirements of Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012.

9.6 The impact on parking and highway safety

9.6.1 Parking for 44 vehicles would be associated with the application site which in the officer's opinion is an appropriate ratio for this sust ainable town centre location, being in close proximity to alternative town centre parking, the train station and bus routes. The County Highway Authority has undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangem ents and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a significant material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore has no highway requirements and it is not con sidered that the proposed development would conflict with the principles of Policy TC7 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) or Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.7 Affordable Housing Provision

9.7.1 Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 advises that the Borough Council will negotiate the overall quantity and type of on-site affordable housing on a site-by-site basis with a target of 40% on-site affordable housing on developments of 15 or more units. Notwithstanding this, an Affordable Housing Statement submitted in support of the current application indicates that in view of recent changes to Class J of the General Permitted Develop ment Order (as set out in Paragraph 9.3.4 above), the Applicants consider that a contribution towards affordable housing provision is unjustified, on the basis that a valid and viable fall-back position exists in which an almost identical scheme could be provided under permitted development without incurring such contributions.

9.7.2 The Council recognises that the Permitted Development fall-back position identified by the Applicant is material to the determination of the current application and that in t he event that the current scheme is resisted, it is very likely a similar scheme will come forward under permitted development (please see Paragraph 9.3.4). In the event that such a scheme comes forward, the Council will not be able to request any affordab le housing provision on site, or contributions in lieu thereof. Officers also recognise that the limited alterations to the building assessed under the current application offer significant benefits to character and residential amenity over what any scheme submitted under the prior approval procedure is likely to be able to provide. Therefore it is considered that although the proposed development would not comply with the requirements of Policy CP5, contributions towards affordable housing cannot be reason ably justified by the Local Planning Authority given the materiality of the permitted development fall-back position and the other benefits arising from the current scheme.

9.8 The impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.8.1 The site is located approximately 900m from the closest point of the Special Protection Area (SPA) and as such the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 apply. In January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection A rea Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the Borough and establishes that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. In this instance a contribution of £171,207 would be required and would still be required in the event that the current application was withdrawn and an application for prior approval was sought.

Subject to a unilateral undertaking securing these contributi ons being received by the Council before the 15 th November 2013, it is considered that the impact of the development upon the SPA can be adequately avoided. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of Policy CP14 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD.

9.9 The impact on local infrastructure provision

9.9.1 On the 1 st February 2009 the Council adopted the Surrey Tariff Scheme for the purpose o f securing developer contributions towards a range of infrastructure. In October 2011 the Council formally adopted the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document which provides further policy context for the contributions. Contributions are re quired for any development providing additional dwellings; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out by the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable is dependent on the number, the size and the location of the units.

9.9.2 This application proposes a net increase of 11 one bedroom flats and 24 two bedroom flats within Camberley Town Centre. This would usually incur a financial contribution of £80,231.72 (plus a monitoring fee at 5% of £4,011.59) to be put towards primary educ ation, transport, libraries, indoor sport, community facilities and waste and recycling to mitigate the impact of the development. Notwithstanding this, the Applicants do not consider that such contributions should be chargeable on the proposed development given that an almost identical scheme albeit with lesser amenity provision could be provided without planning permission under changes to Class J of the General Permitted Development Order. The Council notes that this Permitted Development fall-back posit ion is material to the determination of the current application and that significant weight should be attached to the fall-back position (please see Paragraph 9.3.4). The Council also recognises that the limited alterations to the building assessed under t he current application offer benefits to character and residential amenity over what any scheme provided under permitted development is likely to be able to provide. As such whilst it is recognised that the scheme will undoubtedly have an impact upon local infrastructure, it is considered that, in view of the permitted development fall-back position and the other benefits arising from the current scheme, such a level of contribution cannot be reasonably justified by the Local Planning Authority.

9.9.3 Not withstanding the above, it is noted that in the event that the current application was resisted and an application was subsequently made to the Council for a determination as to whether prior approval would be needed for the conversion of the un-extended b uilding to residential accommodation, the Council would still need to assess the highways impact arising from the scheme. It may therefore still be considered appropriate and justifiable to seek the contribution of £42,936.40 that would normally be request ed by the Highways Authority under the Surrey Tariff Scheme for the purposes of highways improvements within the Town Centre. Comments in respect to whether such a level of contribution is justified are awaited from the Highways Authority. As such whilst i t is not considered that the proposed development would not be wholly compliant with Policy CP12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2011, it is consider ed that subject to the receipt of a unilateral undertaking securing contributions towards highways improvement works being received by the Council before the 15 th November 2013 (if deemed necessary), it is not considered that any objection can be adequately sustained on these grounds.

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

10.1 In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This has included the following:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure tha t the application was correct and could be registered.

c) Have accepted additional information following validation to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development.

d) Have proactively communicated with th e applicant through the process to advise of progress and timescale.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 It is concluded that whilst the proposed development would fail to accord with the objectives of Policies CP5 and CP12 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, in addition to guidance contained within the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2011, an almost identical scheme could be implemented under Class J of the Town and Country Plannin g (General Permitted Development) Order 2013 (as amended) without the need to make contributions towards affordable housing or infrastructure (notwithstanding contributions in respect to highways improvements). Given that Officers consider that the scheme meets the requirements of all other applicable Policies and offers wider benefits to amenity than what would be achievable under permitted development, Officers do not consider that the lack of affordable housing or infrastructure contributions should warr ant the refusal of the current application. As such subject to the completion of legal undertakings in relation to Special Protection Area mitigation and to secure Planning Infrastructure Contributions towards Highways improvements (if necessary), one work ing day before the expiry date of the application (15 th November), it is recommended that the application be approved.

03 2013/0315 Reg Date 14/08/2013 Mytchett/Deepcut

LOCATION: 45 DEEPCUT BRIDGE ROAD, DEEPCUT, CAMBERLEY, GU16 6QT PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 detached two storey dwellings following demolition of existing bungalow. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr C Taylor OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application seeks permission for the erection of 3 detached two-storey dwellinghouses following the demolition of the existing bungalow. The proposed dwellings would be sited in a staged row across the site with Plot 1 aligned with the forward bu ilding line of the adjoining property with Plots 2 and 3 set marginally further back. Each property would have 2 car parking spaces and would include turning areas so that cars may enter and leave the site in forward gear.

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

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

• The impact of the development on residential amenities

• The impact on highway safety and the level of parking provided

• The impact of the development on biodiversity and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

• The impact of the of the development on local infrastructure provision

1.3 The report concludes that the development proposed would respect the pattern and character of the development in the surrounding area and would not adversely impact on residential amenities or give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. It is h owever not possible to mitigate the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the applicant has not provided mitigation against the impact of the development on local infrastructure provision. Furthermore, insufficie nt information has been provided to demonstrate that the development can be undertaken without causing significant harm to protected species which may be present on the site.

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

Species Regulation 2010 (The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 and CP14 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

2. In the absence of a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 in relation to the provision of infrastructure contributions towards primary and secondary education, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, indoor sports, community facilities and recycling in accordance with the requirements of Surrey Heath Borough Councils Developer Contributions SPD. In the absence of this mitigation the development would contribute to a deterioration in these services and facilities.

3. Insufficient information has been provided to determine the impact of the development on protected species which may be present on the site or to establish an appropriate level of mitigation against any such impact. Accordingly the development conflicts with the objectives of Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and is contrary to the guidance contained in the NPPF.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

3.2 Relevant planning history

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site is located on the west site of Deepcut Bridge Road and currently comprises a detached bungalow. The site access from Deepcut Bridge Road and is currently extremely overgrown with vegetation such that views into the site and views of the existing property are limited.

4.2 The site is bounded to the south and the west by other residential p roperties. To the north the site is bounded by a private access way leading to the residential properties to the rear of the site while the public highway marks the eastern boundary of the site.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/2000/0389 Outline application for the erection of one detached two-storey dwellinghouse and a pair of two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouses.

Approved (11/07/2000)

5.2 SU/2003/0614 Outline application for the erection of one detached two storey dwellinghouse and a pair of semi-detac hed dwellinghouses (renewal of SU/00/0389).

Approved (21/07/2003)

5.3 SU/2006/0424 Renewal of application 2003/0614 for the outline application for the erection of one detached two storey dwelling house and a pair of two storey semi-detached dwelling houses.

Approved (26/07/2006)

5.4 SU/2009/0570 Reserved Matters application for SU/06/0424 for the erection of one detached two storey dwelling house and a pair of two storey semi-detached dwellinghouses.

Approved (17/09/2009)

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application seeks permission for the erection of 3 detached two-storey dwellinghouses following the demolition of the existing bungalow. The proposed dwellings would be sited in a staged row across the site with Plot 1 aligned with the forward building line of the adjoining property with Plots 2 and 3 set marginally further back. A gap of 2 metres would be provided between each property with the Plot 1 being approximately 2.5 metre from the south boundary and Plot 3 approximately 1 metre from the norther n boundary.

6.2 The proposed dwellings would all be architecturally similar and would have gabled dual pitched roofs the ridge running front to back. The dwellings would be approximately 8 metres to the ridge and 4.8 metres to the eaves. Plot 1 would be served by a new access to be created to Deepcut Bridge Road while Plots 2 and 3 would share by the existing access which would be widened. Each property would have 2 car parking spaces and would include turning areas so that cars may enter and leave the site in forward gear.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway No objection to the development subject to conditions. Authority

8.0 REPRESENTATION

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

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement of Deepcut as identified by the proposals map and as such policies CP2, CP3, CP11, CP12, CP14, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 are relevant to the

consideration of this application. The policy of the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration as is the guidance contained in the Deepcut SPD.

9.2 The main issues to be addressed in deterring this application are:

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

• The impact of the development on residential amenities

• The impact on highway safety and the level of parking provided

• The impact of the development on biodiversity and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

• The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

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

9.3.1 The application site is within a residential area, development is generally two-storey and fronts the highway in a traditional manner though there are examples of higher density flatted developments. The dwellings in the area vary significantly in age, ch aracter and design and the application site is one of few single storey residential properties in the area.

9.3.2 Planning permission was previously granted for the development of this site for a detached dwelling and a pair of semi-detached dwellings whi ch had a similar character and design to the residential units now proposed. While the current scheme is for three detached units the plot widths would be similar to other dwellings in the area and the run of modest two-storey properties would fit well wi th the existing pattern of development in the area. The spacing between the properties and the spacing to the boundaries would be sufficient to ensure that the site would not appear cramped or overdeveloped in comparison to the adjoining development.

9.3.3 The site is currently significantly overgrown and accordingly a large quantity of vegetation would need to be removed to facilitate the development. However, there are few high quality landscape features on the site. Any landscaping removed could be ap propriately mitigated by suitable replacement planting and therefore subject to a condition to secure an appropriate landscaping scheme, no objection should be raised to the loss of soft landscaping.

9.3.4 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the development would reflect the pattern of development in the area and the dwellings proposed would respect the scale, character and quality of other dwellings in the area. Accordingly the application is considered to meet the objectives of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the guidance contained in the Deepcut SPD.

9.4 The impact of the development on residential amenities

9.4.1 To the south the site adjoins No.43 Deepcut Bridge Road which is a detached two-storey dwellinghouse. The building on Plot 1 would be approximately 5.3 metres from the flank elevation of this property and would be sited so as to largely reflect the front and rear building line of this property. It is not considered that the development proposed would give rise to an overbearing or unneighbourly relationship when viewed from this property. The building on Plot 1 would include a first floor window in the s ide elevation facing No.43 however subject to a condition to ensure this is obscure glazed the development would not impact on the privacy the occupants of this property currently enjoy.

9.4.2 To the north of the site is the flatted development known as M aultway Gate. These residential units are separated from the application site by a single width track which gives access to other residential properties to the rear of the application site. It is considered that 21

given the intervening distance, and the bo undary screening which exists, the development proposed would not materially impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the units within Maultway Gate. There are other residential properties to the rear of the site however the development would b e significantly screened by the retained landscaping and would be a sufficient distance from these properties for it not to impact on residential amenities the occupants of these properties currently enjoy.

9.4.3 In light of the above it is considered t hat the development would not materially adversely impact on residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding properties and accordingly the development meets the objectives of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.5 The impact on highway safety and the level of parking provided

9.5.1 The application site currently benefits from access to Deepcut Bridge Road. The proposed development includes the creation of a new vehicle access to serve Plot 1 close to the southern boundary of the site and proposes that Plots 2 and 3 would use a shared access formed in the location of the existing access point. The County Highway's Authority has advised that they have no objection to the creation of the new accesses and have advised that the development would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

9.5.2 Each of the proposed dwellings would have off-street car parking for 2 cars. It is considered that, having regard to the size of the units and the location of the site, this level of provision would be appropriate to meet the needs of the occupants of the units. The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the level of parking proposed.

9.5.3 Having regard to the above it is considered that the development would meet the objectives of Policy CP11 and Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and no objection should be raised to the proposal on these grounds.

9.6 The impact of the development on biodiversity and on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

9.6.1 The application site comprises a single dilapidated bungalow on a significantly overgrown and unused site. The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological Apprais al which identifies that the dwelling probably provides a summer roost for a small number of brown long eared bats however it states that it has not been possible to rule out crevice roosting Pipistrelle bats. The report is inconclusive as to the form of mitigation that is required and recommends that further survey work is undertaken to assess the impacts on this protected species. In the absence of full details of the impact on bats on the site and knowledge of the proposed mitigation it is not possible to determine that the development would not impact on this protected species. The development therefore conflicts with the objectives of Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.6.2 The application site i s located within 1.5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). Natural England are currently advising that new residential development within 5km of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 2 residential units and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impac t on the protected site.

9.6.3 In January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. The SANGS identified by the Council have however now reached capacity and can no longer mitigate the impact of new residential development.

9.6.4 In the absence of any mitigation for this development it cannot be demonstrated that the development proposed, in combination with other development, would not impact on the integrity of the SPA. Accordingly the planning authority must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.7 The impact of the of the development on local infrastructure provision

9.7.1 The Council adopted the Developer Contributions SPD in October 2011 and financial contributions are now required for any development providing ne w dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out by the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location. While such contributions wer e not previously sought on applications for this site, these applications predated that adoption of the Developer Contributions SPD and this is a material change in circumstances. This and any subsequent applications should be considered against the requirements of this document.

9.7.2 In this instance the development proposes the erection of 3 three-bedroom dwellings following the demolition of the existing three bedroom bungalow. As such a total contribution of £ 26,901.00 is required which would be put towards primary and secondary education, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, community facilities, indoor sports, and recycling, and is required ensure that the infrastructure impact of the development is miti gated. The applicant has however not provided any mechanism to secure is contribution and as such the development would have an adverse impact on local infrastructure provision and would fail to meet the objectives of Policy CP12 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

10.1 In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positiv e and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the applicati on was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development

b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The development proposed would respect the pattern and character of the development in the surrounding area and would not adversely impact on residential amenities or give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety. It is however not possible to mitigate the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the applicant has not provided mitigation against the impact of the development on local infrastructure provision. Furthermore insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the development can be undertaken without causing significan t harm to protected species which may be present on the site.

04 2013/0374 Reg Date 25/06/2013 Frimley

LOCATION: CHILDRENS CENTRE, 5 CHURCH ROAD, FRIMLEY, CAMBERLEY, GU16 7AD PROPOSAL: Erection of 6 blocks at part two storey, part three storey buildings and extensions to existing locally listed building to comprise 1 x 1 bedroom, 23 x 2 bedroom and 10 x 4 bedroom market housing and 19 x 4 bedroom and 10 x 1 bedroom affordable housing following part demolition of existing outbuildings and part retention of the locally listed building. (Additional info rec'd 17/07/13), (Amended plan & additional info rec'd 17/07/13), (Additional plan & info rec'd 30/07/13), (Amended & Additional plans rec'd 31/07/13), (Additional info rec'd 06/08/13). TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mrs Janet King Frimley Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust OFFICER: Michelle Fielder

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of a brownfield site located in a prominent position within the settlement of Frimley. The proposed development is a relatively high density scheme and would, if approved, deli ver a range of market housing and replacement residential keyworker units (for existing units keyworker units located at Frimley Park Hospital). The market housing is, for all intents and purposes, enabling development to finance the delivery of the much needed replacement keyworker units.

1.2 The report sets out the main considerations in the determination of this application as being:

1. The principle of the development;

2. The proposal's impact on the char acter and appearance of the area, including heritage assets;

3. The proposals impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the level of amenity afforded to future residents;

4. Housing mix, tenure and the loss of keyworker units;

5. Parking provision and highway safety;

6. The proposal's impact on the Thames Basin Heath SPA and ecology generally;

7. The proposal's impact on the infrastructure of the Borough.

1.3 The report notes that the design response and quant um of development is acceptable and that the proposal would deliver a satisfactory level of amenity for future residents and would not be harmful to the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties, biodiversity or ecological matters of interest, nor give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

1.4 A viability case has been submitted to demonstrate that the scheme would be unviable if contributions towards affordable housing (AH) and infrastructure are sought and on this basis these matte rs have been set aside. Mitigation towards the harm which would otherwise arise to the Thames Basin Heath SPA from the market housing proposed is required as is a suitable mechanism to ensure that the occupation / use of the existing keyworker housing on FPH ceases. A final material consideration weighing in favour of grant of planning permission is the specific nature of the proposal and the delivery keyworker housing. This caries significant weight to justify a grant of planning permission.

1.5 Acco rdingly subject to the completion of a legal agreement it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

1. Defer and Delegate subject to receipt of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure:

• mitigation in accordance with the Councils adopted Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document, Adopted January 2012 as detailed at para 1.4, 9.8.3 and 9.8.4 of this report

• the decanting of existing keyworker accommodation at FPH as outlined in para 1., 9.8.3 and 9.8.4 of this report and at no cost to the Council, the Head of Regulatory be authorised to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed:

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

2. No development (for the purposes of this condition this does not include works of demolition and site clearance) shall take place until full details of surface water drainage systems and foul water drainage system are submitted and approved in writing by the LPA. The surface water drainage system details to include attenuation of 1:100 year event at 30% climate change. Once approved the details shall be carried out prior to first occupation in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and to accord with Policies CP2 and DM10 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework. 26

3. Details of the external materials to be used in the construction of:

• Block X • Block Y • Block Z • Block B • Block C • Block D

shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works associated with the erection of the individual Block.

The details to be submitted shall include proposed brick, tile, guttering and fenestration. Once approved, the development shall be carried out using only the agreed materials.

For the avoidance of doubt this condition requires approval of external materials to be used in the construction of an individual block prior to the commencement of works associated with the development of that Block and not the wider development.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

4. The external works hereby approved to Building 1 (Block A on the approved plans) shall be undertaken in external fascia materials; brick, tile, bonding and pointing, to match those of the original building.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

5. Other than for works of demolition and site clearance, no development associated with the erection of Blocks X, Y and Z shall commence until details of the surface materials for the access road, car parking and turning areas associated with those Blocks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of Blocks X, Y and Z.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

6. Other than for works of demolition and site clearance, no development associated with the erection of Blocks B, C and D, or the conversion works associated with Block A, shall commence until details of the surface materials for the access roads, car parking and turning areas associated with those Blocks shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the occupation of Blocks A, B, C and D.

Reason: To safeguard the visual a menities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

7. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 1 to 3 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

1. Site Characterisation An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

i. A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; ii. An assessment of the potential risks to: • human health, • property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, • adjoining land, • groundwaters and surface waters, • ecological systems, • archeological sites and ancient monuments; iii. An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

3. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. 28

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

4. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition 1, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition 2, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition 3.

5. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation over a period of 5 years, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with the aims and objectives of the NPPF

8. Prior to commencement of the development (for the purposes of this condition this does not include works of demolition and site clearance) hereby permitted a lighting impact assessment showing the impacts of the proposed development (and associated external lighting) on the zone of influence in both the horizontal and vertical planes shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the development is not harmful to the amenities of nearby residential properties in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the NPPF.

9. Before the development is occupied the proposed access road shall be designed/constructed in accordance with the approved plans all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

For the avoidance of doubt the specification referred to above shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Polices 2012.

10. No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the parking space associated with that unit of accommodation (as shown on the approved plan (ref: D-005 Rev B)) has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan.

In addition a minimum of one cycle parking space per unit shall be provided to Blocks A,B, C and D prior to the first occupation of those units.

Visors and disabled parking spaces must be provided, in accordance with the approved plans, prior to the first occupation of the last residential unit hereby approved.

All parking and turning areas shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose.

11. Prior to the commencement of works associated with the refurbishment and reuse of Block A, a plan showing a revised refuse point(s) for that Block shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The refuse point must be provided prior to the occupation of any unit contained within that Block and retained exclusively for that use. All other refuse points indicated on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any unit contained within the respective Block and thereafter retained exclusively for their designated purpose.

Reason: The location of the two refuse points along Church Road is considered inappropriate would be likely to be harmful to the character and appearance of the application site and the wider area, and in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Polices 2012.

12. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of a lighting scheme to be installed along the flank elevations of Blocks X and Y (facing the cycle and pedestrian access) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to any part of the development being occupied and permanently retained thereafter.

Reason: In order that the development promotes sustainable transport modes and to accord with Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Polices 2012.

13. No new development shall be occupied until a gate has been provided to the pedestrian /cycle access with its junction at Portsmouth road. In addition, prior to any part of the development being occupied details of a means of securing that gate (so that it be only be used by residents / occupants of the development and emergency vehicles /personnel) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to any part of the development being occupied and shall be permanently retained.

Reason: In order that the development promotes sustainable transport modes and to accord with Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Polices 2012.

14. Prior to the occupation of the relevant part of the development a Parking Management Plan that discourages non-users of the development to park at the site has been agreed and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The agreed Parking Management Plan shall be implemented on first occupation and permanently maintained.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with p Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Polices 2012.

15. 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 shall be erected to dwellinghouses C-01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 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 Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

16. There shall be no alteration to site levels without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

17. 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 Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:

(e) provision of boundary hoarding (f) hours of construction

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

19. Other than for works of demolition and site clearance, no development associated with the erection of Blocks A, B, C and D shall commence until full details of soft landscaping to be undertaken to the public / private and amenity areas of those Blocks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residential unit in the aforementioned Blocks.

The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out.

Any trees or plants, which within a period of five years of commencement of any works in pursuance of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as soon as practicable with others of similar size and species, following consultation with the Local Planning Authority, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

20. Other than for works of demolition and site clearance, no development associated with the erection of Blocks X, Y and Z shall commence until full details of soft landscaping to be undertaken to the public / private and amenity areas of those Blocks shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of any residential unit in the aforementioned Blocks.

The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out.

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

21. The development shall be built in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Assessment [Ian Keen dated 23.10.2012]. In addition, prior to the commencement of any development including works of site clearance or preparation, a scheme setting out details of a pre-commencement site meeting (to be arranged a minimum of 5 working days in advance) to agree tree protection fencing, ground protection, any facilitation pruning works, Arboricultural supervision of excavation works and the frequency of inspection visits along with a reporting process to the Tree Officer shall be submitted to and approved by, the LPA in writing.

Once approved, the development shall proceed in accordance with those details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

22. The units of residential accommodation to be provided in Blocks X, Y and Z of the development hereby approved shall only be used as key worker accommodation by students and staff working at (and their partners and dependants), or on rotation too Frimley Park Hospital only and for no other purpose.

The accommodation to be provided within these Blocks units shall not be sold or let on the open market.

Reason: to ensure that the development does not impact on the integrity of the TBH SPA, the infrastructure of the Borough or result in further loss of keyworker bedspaces in the Borough.

23. The development hereby approved will be undertaken in complete accordance with the Sustainability Statement written by Kate Hodson and dated 28/05/2013.

Reason: to comply with the aims and objectives of Policy CP2 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

24. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans:

D-005 Rev.B Site plan (other than in respect of those matters detailed in condition 11), D-055 Rev.A, D-56 Rev.A, D-059 Rev.A, D-060, D-061 Rev.B, D-062 Rev.A, D-063. Rev A, D-065 Rev.B, D-066 Rev.B, D-067 Rev.B, D-068 Rev.B, D-075 Rev.C, D-076 Rev.C, D-080 Rev.A, D-081 Rev.A, D-085 Rev.C, D-086 Rev.C, D-090 Rev.B, D-091 Rev.B

unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transport Development Planning Team of Surrey County Council.

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

4. A pedestrian inter-visibility splay of 2m by 2m shall be provided on each side of the access, the depth measured from the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access. No fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility between 0.6m and 2m in height above ground level shall be erected within the area of such splays.

5. The applicant is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway works required by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may require necessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings, highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces, surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.

2. In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed to ensure no harm arises to the integrity of the SPA by 16 October 2013, 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 reason:

• The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations 34

and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in the NPPF and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012).

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 None.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The site extends to 0.8ha and contains 4 buildings. The main building fronting Church Road is Fr imley Children’s Centre. This building is locally listed; however it has a number of unsympathetic extensions to the rear. The remaining buildings are located in each corner of the site and one of these remains in use.

4.2 The bulk of the site is la id to hard surfacing. There is some tree cover to the eastern and northern boundaries of the site. None of these are subject to a tree preservation order however a number are considered to have amenity value.

4.3 The site is bounded to the east by 4 storey residential accommodation (Chantry Court) with Portsmouth Road to the North, comprising 2 storey accommodation. Church Road lies to the south and opposite the application site is a two storey care home. To the southwest of the site is the White Hart Public House which is a grade II listed building.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 None relevant to this application.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application site has an ar ea of 0.8ha. The development proposed on this area is the erection of:

BLOCK X - 1 Block containing 7 x 4 bed units. This block would stand between (approximately) 11m high to the ridge (at the point closest to the boundary with 121 Guildford Road) and this height would be maintained for 11.5m whereon the height of this block would increase to 14m. The accommodation would be provided over 3 floors at 11m ridge height increasing to 4 within the taller part of the building.

BLOCK Y – 1 Block comprising 7 x 4 bed units. This block would provide accommodation over 4 floors and would stand 14m high to the ridge.

BLOCK Z – 1 Block comprising 10 x 1 bed units. This block would provide accommodation over 4 floors and would stand approximately 14.4m to the ridge. The slight increase in height in this block and Bock Y (which adjoins this Block) is due to the very slight levels change and as such the ridge height would be a continued between the two blocks.

BLOCKS X – Z would provide a staggered façade to Guildford Road. The blocks themselves would be articulated with front projections enclosing the stairwells.

These units would provide keyworker accommodation displaced from FPH. A legal agreement would be put in place to secure the decanting of the accom modation at FPH. This is required to ensure no net gain of residential bedspaces arises from this aspect of the proposal to ensure that no impact on the integrity of the TBH SPA arises.

BLOCK B – This block would provide 9 x 2 bed flats and would be sited along the side boundary of the site beyond which lies Frimley High Street. The block would provide accommodation over 4 floors (utilising the roof space to provide the 4th floor). This building would stand 12.4m high to the ridge and 6.7m to the eaves. This block would provide market housing.

Block C – comprises 2 terraced blocks of 2.5 storey 4 bed houses. These dwellings would stand 10m to the ridge and 6m to the eaves with the accommodation provided in the roof. Rooms at this level would benefit f rom eaves level dormer windows. One block would provide 6 units and the other 4. This are proposed to be market housing.

Block D – this would be sited in the location of existing building in the south eastern corner of the site. The building would stan d 11.5m to the ridge reducing to 10m. Accommodation would be provided over 3 floors comprising 5 two beds units. The block would address Church Road but would also front the new internal access road to be created. Parking to the rear of this unit would be facilitated by an undercroft access off the internal access road.

Block A – units here would be provided in the refurbished Locally Listed Building fronting Church Road. Various unsympathetic extensions to the rear of this building would be demolished and the original building converted to provide 5 two bed units (of which 2 would provide accommodation over two floors) and 1 bed unit. Accommodation would be provided over 3 floors (one of which would be the roof space).

6.2 40 parking spaces would be provided for the keyworker units in Blocks X-Y, flats would be provided with 1 space per unit and the dwellinghouses 2 spaces. 3 visitor spaces and 1 disabled parking space would also be provided.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway The proposed key worker accommodation and residential Authority market units will generate significantly less trips compared to the existing children centre. Therefore the development will result in a decrease in the number of site specific trips.

Elements of the services that are currently provided at the children’s centre are being relocated to the main hospital site. The drug and alcohol unit which is located at the existing children’s centre will be relocated to an alternative site. Th e total number of trips of the proposed development and the service to be relocated to the hospital is slightly above the existing children’s centre at peak times, therefore there is an overall increase in trips on the local highway network at peak times. The increase overall trips is marginal and will have negligible effect on the local highway network.

The market residential dwellings are provided with two parking spaces per dwelling and the market residential flats are provided with one space per dwell ing. The level of parking is sufficient to serve the units and is in accordance with Surrey County Council Parking Guidance.

A total of 40 car parking spaces are provided for accommodation for 86 key workers and so not all the workers will have parking. However there is no need for key workers to use a car for work as they will be in walking distance from the hospital. The key worker accommodation at the main hospital site does not have dedicated parking and so the parking provision is an increase over wh at is currently available for key workers. Considering the circumstances the proposed parking level for the key workers is considered appropriate.

The proposal for a pedestrian access on to Portsmouth Road shortens the walking route to the main hospital f or key workers, without the pedestrian access pedestrians are required to walk up around Frimley High street. The pedestrian access promotes accessibility for the users of the development. Concerns have been raised over the safety of the pedestrian route for key workers at night time. A condition is recommended to provide lighting to this access to ensure a safer environment at night time.

It is well known there is a large demand for parking in the area around the hospital. Therefore efforts should be ma de to discourage non occupants or visitors of the development to park at the site. A Parking Management Plan may include markings and signage to reinforce private parking and/or bollards on each parking bay to ensure bays are used by residents only.

7.2 Head of Environmental No objection subject to condition Services

7.3 Frimley Parish Council Comments awaited.

7.4 Drainage Officer Comments awaited. 37

7.5 Crime Reduction Officer Comment:

It is recommended that the buildings are constructed to compl y with the principles of secured by design. This will ensure that the security of the individual buildings is provided to a high standard. The likelihood of the area suffering from crime will be reduced.

The footpath linking the development to the Ports mouth Road runs between two three storey buildings. At night visibility to pedestrians will be reduced. Best practice in new developments is to avoid alleyways, the public do not feel safe using them and they can attract crime. This year in the area of the hospital we have had two assaults on female staff walking home after finishing work, some of this accommodation is to be staff accommodation. If the alleyway cannot be avoided it should be lit to allow a bright and clear view along its entire length whilst reducing any dead areas or caste shadows. It is also recommended that alley gates are fitted at each end to prevent it from being used as a cut through by cycles and motorcycles.

This development is close to Frimley Park Hospital. The area aro und the hospital suffers from the impact of vehicles parked by hospital staff and visitors. The hospital has provided alternative staff parking but experience has shown that some staff do not use it preferring to park as close to the hospital as possible. This brings them into conflict with residents. We have experience of staff cars being damaged and residents coming into heated debate and verbal conflict with a person parking inconsiderately close to houses and garages. A good example of this is Gilber t Road which has recently attracted press and political comment. If this development goes ahead it is highly likely that visitors and staff may try and use the area for easy parking access to the hospital. It is requested that this is given consideration in the planning process to reduce the likelihood of conflict and antisocial behaviour. Measures that could be considered would be a physical barrier control at the main entrance or residents parking schemes. It would be important that any residents parki ng schemes were enforceable by the local authority.

7.6 Planning Policy Manager Extensive comments provided (copied as an appendix to this report), No objection.

7.7 Historic Buildings Officer Initial comment:

Concerned that Block B will be con spicuous behind the White Hart. Although it might not be a dominant structure on the horizon it will present a background against which the pub will be seen. This is in contrast to the desire to retain a perception of 38

the pub as a principal building in the settlement, which has changed considerably in the last hundred years. The pub is one of the only clear reminders that Frimley had been a Surrey village at one time. When viewed from the High Street the pub acts as the terminal to the vista along the route . At the moment the pub stands alone with only the mature trees and sky behind. This appreciation of the historic building will be affected by the taller development behind. My concern is that the pub will be, to some extent, subsumed into the general buil t form. It would be useful if the architects are able to provide a montage or isometric drawing to show what the visual impact might be from a viewpoint somewhere close to the junction of High Street and Cedar Lane.

I understand that this is a constrained site and the brief is particularly challenging. I would have preferred a more design heavy compromise but appreciate the difficulties in balancing public and private space with car parking requirements. I am conscious of the rather massive elevations of s ome of the blocks. In particular the south elevation of Block C and the south east and north west elevations of Block B would benefit from some false reveals and/or brick diaper work. I would like to see this introduced in revised drawings.

Although the sc heme had been improved I still have concerns that should be addressed in order that the setting of the listed building is not negatively affected. I am also convinced simple design techniques will improve the massive elevations of the new residential blocks.

Revised comments following the submission of revised drawings:

I am now satisfied the new development will not have a harmful impact on the setting of the White Hart. I am happy the street view illustration gives a good idea of how visible Block B will be behind the listed building. I still believe more could be made of the side elevations but will not make a fuss. I am now able to support the application in full.

7.8 Surrey Wildlife Trust Final comments awaited.

7.9 Arboricultural Officer An Arbo ricultural report has been prepared in this instance by Ian Keen Limited. The supplied Tree Constraints Plan [TCP] is dated October 2012 and the Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Report are both dated May 2013. The report is BS5837:2012 compliant and is generally acceptable in this instance.

The Report advises a total of 23 trees would be removed from a 39 total of 35 [approximately 70%]. Twenty are category C trees and the remaining three are category B trees. Poplar T33 has already been removed in th e interests of health and safety. Of the remaining trees scheduled to be removed, both Oak T7 and Ash T13, both category B trees, would be removed to facilitate the development. Both trees have significant ivy infestation which has made the canopies dense and restricts visual assessment of the main stem and crown structure. Both trees are visually significant within the landscape and appear to be larger than the reported dimensions. The Condition details suggest that both trees should be removed either due to the possibility of infection by Inonotus hispidus in the case of T13 and in the case of Oak T7 that the ivy has supressed development of the tree and it now contains dead wood. I do not necessarily agree with either and consider their likely loss to dev elopment as regrettable. Should the proposals be accepted, the recommendation would be made that the loss should be offset by the supply and planting of at least two semi mature replacements. However, in this instance, the development layout constrains ava ilable planting areas and precludes this option. Other than the comments above, I raise no objection to the removal of any the remaining trees, all of which are of low vigour, poor form or condition and of little visual significance.

Tree Protection Measur es section of the report are site specific and is essential for the duration of any build and is in regard to the retained trees. This relates to tree protective fencing and ground protection and is of a limited nature as few existing trees would be retained.

Remedial and maintenance tree works have been specified in relation to facilitation pruning and good management. Notwithstanding such, any tree works will need to be undertaken prior to any other works and immediately before the installation of tree an d ground protection measures. It should be noted that there are currently no extant Statutory Controls and therefore the consent of the Local Planning Authority will not be required.

There is no reference within the Arboricultural Report to a pre commencem ent site meeting. This is an essential element of the project phasing and provides for confirmation of all safe guarding of retained tree stocks. A pre-commencement meeting should be a Condition of any approval and must be agreed a minimum of 7 working d ays in advance of the start of any works on site to allow the Arboricultural and/or Enforcement and Case officers to attend. Tree works, tree and ground protection, storage etc. will all need to be agreed at that stage. Final details regarding site supervi sion visits and reporting must

40 also be finalised and agreed.

A Site Planting Schedule has been produced by Devereaux Architects dated 23 July 2013. The schedule details a comprehensive planting proposal which includes extensive hedging throughout the site using a total of 2212 bare rooted whips using a mixed species matrix. I raise no objections to this proposal.

The same Site Planting Schedule also details the supply and planting of 63 trees throughout the site comprising a total of 6 species in sizes rang ing from Standard to Semi mature. Whilst the numbers and sizes of trees are welcome, I have the following observations to make regarding several of the selections:

• Acer griseum [Paper Bark Maple] – A high ornamental species presenting a uniform crown an d a mature height of 6-9m. Whilst the peeling bark is an attractive feature, the tree is very prone to the attentions of children and vandalism frequently occurs and is a reason why the tree is rarely planted in schools, play areas and public parks.

• Prunus avium [Wild Cherry] – a native tree which frequently attains a mature height of 15 – 32m. Whilst apical in form when young, the canopy becomes rounded and irregular and due to its mature size is usually restricted to parklands and not residential or street planting.

• Carpinus betulus [Hornbeam] – Mature height of 15 – 25m. Hornbeam is notorious for developing a shallow and wide spreading root system frequently resulting in significant disruption of adjacent hard surfaces. Combined with extensive la teral spreading of the crown profile at maturity, this tree species is not suitable for restricted residential developments.

• Betula utilis Jacquemontii [Himalayan Birch] – Mature height of up to 20m. A highly attractive ornamental feature tree, but one which also has distinctive peeling bark and therefore susceptible to the attention of children and vandals. This may well be exacerbated with a continuous line of eleven iden tical trees to the front of properties. Additionally, Himalayan Birch frequently develops a loose and poor crown formation at maturity unless propagated as a budded or grafted specimen.

• Quercus robur [Pedunculate Oak] – Mature height can be in excess of 25m and occasionally up to 40m. Whilst 41

ecologically important in supporting a wealth of organisms, Oak trees host insects and attract approximately 500 different species. With a significant growth potential in not only height but also lateral spread, the proposal to locate these four trees adjacent buildings is likely to be problematic in the medium to long term. Indeed, two of the trees on the Church Road frontage would be a mere 5m and 6m respectively from the building. Should Oak be a selected species, then a fastigiate cultivar should be considered such as Quercus robur fastigiata “Koster”.

In conclusion, the above are matters of concern and should be addressed. In summary:

• The loss of 2 visually significant category B trees

• The proposed planting of tree species which may prove to be inappropriate for the location and problematic as they develop and necessitate extensive and costly containment surgery works or increased pressure to remove entirely.

• The planting [bunching?] of identical trees in linear groups where species diversity may present an improved and softer appearance within the landscape.

Accordingly, I would suggest that the matters relating to landscape planting of trees be the subject of review and revision.

7.10 Environment Agency No objection: reference to standing advice and the requirement to provide a 5m buffer zone to the water course within the site boundary.

Officer note: the water course referred to is a drainage ditch in the north eastern corner which drains into the Blackwater river approximately 540m south west of the application site. This matter will be considered by the Drainage Officer.

8.0 REPRESENTATIONS

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

• Traffic generation

• Insufficient parking provision / will cause overspill parking at Chantry Court

9.0 PLANNING ISSUES

9.1 The application site lies within the settlement boundary of Frimley and is prominently located at a major transport hub within the Borough. The site is within a ‘commercial node’ as defined by the Western Urban Character Area SP D (WUCA SPD). The application site abuts the curtilage of a Listed Building (the White Hart Public House); in addition the principle building on the application site itself is a locally listed building. The southern boundary to Church Road abuts an area of high archaeological potential.

9.2 In this context the planning policy framework against which the application should be determined is Policies DM9, DM11, DM14, DM17, CP3, CP5, CP6, CP12, and CP14A of the Core Strategy and Development Managem ent Policies 2012. Various policy documents underpinning those policies are also relevant (as will be identified in the remainder of this report) as is the general guidance contained within the NPPF.

The main considerations in the determination of this application are therefore:

1. The principle of the development;

2. The proposal's impact on the character and appearance of the area, including heritage assets;

3. The proposal's impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the level of amenity afforded to future residents;

4. Housing mix, tenure and the loss of key worker units;

5. Parking provision and highway safety;

6. The proposal's impact on the Thames Basin Heath and ecology generally;

7. The proposal's impact on the infrastructure of the Borough.

9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 The NPPF advises that the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be seen as a ‘golden thread’ running through plan and deci sion making. In terms of decision making this means that development proposals which accord with the development plan should be approved and, where a plan is out of date or silent, planning permission should be granted unless adverse impacts arising would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting planning permission.

9.3.2 The site is a brownfield site located in a sustainable location close to public transport connections and local facilities. The principle of its redevelopment is supported, moreover in an area with a shortage of land to meet housing demand the use of the site for residential purposes is one which complies with local and national objectives.

9.3.3. Further support for the proposal arises because of its very s pecific nature, which, as set out in Para 3.08 of the supporting planning statement produced by Vail Williams states:

‘The purpose of this application is to relocate some of the occupants of the substandard staff accommodation on the site [Frimley Hospital Site] to a new site which accords with British Medical Standards and enable the relocation of the existing Children’s Centre to a 43

more sustainable location, away from a Drugs and Alcohol unit, on the main Frimley Park Hospital Site’.

In this context the wider proposal is an enabling development with the market housing to be delivered aiding the delivery of much needed key worker accommodation. This is a material consideration which carries significant weight, particularly given that FPH is a major sub-regional health facility and the biggest employer in the Borough.

9.3.4 Policy DM14 of the Core Strategy seeks to re sist the loss of community and cultural facilities in the Borough. The sub text of this Policy (para 6.91 of the Core Strategy) advises that such facilities include health care and children’s facilities and as such the services currently provided on site (children’s medical centre, drug and alcohol rehabilitation services) are protected by this Policy. However as set out in the submitted application the Children’s Centre is to relocate to the newly completed Emergency Department, while Surrey and Borders NHS Trust are seeking an alternative site to relocate the drug and alcohol unit to. On this basis the proposal is considered to comply with the aims and objectives of Policy DM14 of the Core Strategy.

9.3.5 It is therefore considered the principle of the development is not only acceptable but the specifics of the development proposal are such that they carry significant weight to justify a grant of planning permission.

9.4 The proposals impact on the character and appearance of the area, including heritage assets

9.4.1 Policy DM9 of the Core Strategy requires development proposals to pay particular regard to scale, massing and the retention and enhancement of the natural environment. This policy also requires proposals to respect the amenities of adjoining neighbours.

9.4.2 Matters of design and character are also considered in the WUAC SPD which designates the site as being in a ‘commercial node’. The site also lies in close proximity to a ‘main thoroughfare’ character area. The SPD notes t hat the character of commercial nodes is defined by small scale retail development, hard, urban street scenes with terraced buildings dominating. Development proposals should seek to provide 2 – 3 storey development reflective of the architectural detailing, scale and massing of the area.

9.4.3. The character of a main thoroughfare (adjacent) is different, depicting a mix of uses and a mixed infill character with a jumbled appearance softened by vegetation.

9.4.4 The development proposed to front Portsmouth Road (Blocks X, Y and Z) would appear as 2.5 -3.5 storey development. Block X adjacent to no 121 Portsmouth Road would be stepped down with a reduced height of 11m. Block X also has an articulated façade which adds interest and the sta ggered siting serves to break up the massing. A gap of approximately 3.5m would be retained between Block X and Y- Z and while the combined length of blocks Y-Z would be considerable (approximately 45m) the articulation and set back of principal elevations of 1.7m in addition to the set back from the highway (3.5 – 4m) would serve to reduce the visual bulk of this aspect of the proposal.

9.4.5 Block B would be sited approximately 7.5m off the shared boundary with the White Hart public house and some 17m would be retained between the closest elevations. This building would be roughly T shaped and the width of the elevation in closest proximity to 44

the Grade II listed building would be 10.5m and 10.5m deep. This provides accommodation at first, second and w ithin the roof level with the ground floor providing undercroft parking. The Historic Buildings Officer was initially concerned about the impact this aspect of the proposal would have on the Listed Building, however , this concern has been addressed (see comments at para 7.7).

9.4.6 Blocks A and D would front Church Road. Block A is to be formed by the conversion of the existing locally listed building and a number of unsightly extensions would be removed. The su bmitted layout shows parking to be provided to the front of this building and while this is not ideal it mirrors to some degree the existing arrangement and could be softened by securing vegetative planting to the front boundary. This and details of a rev ised location for the storage of communal refuse (currently shown to be located on the site frontage) could be secured by planning condition (see conditions 19 and 11 respectively).

9.4.7 Block D would stand 11.5m high to the ridge and would turn the corn er fronting both Church Road and a newly created internal access road. This building would replace building 3 on the Church Road frontage and would provide a fairly modern design response. At 11.5m high Block D would stand approximately 3m taller than th e existing building however the access road, a 2m set back from the site frontage and planting would serve to reduce the visual impact of the built form. In addition the elevation facing the highway would be articulated with a wrap-around detail to one co rner and the provision of balconies.

9.4.8 Block C would, when viewed from beyond the eastern boundary present a fairly continuous expanse of development. However there is a small break in the block with 4 of the units being sited at a slight angle. I n addition there is scope for some screening to the rear boundaries of the properties and this would serve to soften the proposed development when viewed from Chantry Court.

9.4.9 Internal areas of hard surfacing would provide a shared surface for pedes trians and vehicles however, there remains opportunity for planting in such areas and soft landscaping could also be used to ‘frame’ the blocks as experienced at street level. This and the concerns raised by the Arboricultural Officer (reported in full at para 7.9 of this report) regarding the proposed site landscaping could be dealt with by condition on any approval.

9.4.10 The Arboricultural Officer also raises concern over the amount of tree loss to facilitate the development proposal, in particul ar the loss of 2 visually significant category B trees. While this is indeed regrettable it is considered, as outlined below, that the delivery of much needed housing on this brownfield site weighs in favour of a grant of planning permission.

9.4.11 In summary, it is noted that the site occupies a fairly unusual location, on one hand facing a major transport nub and on the other being seen against the backdrop of the more domestically scaled High Street and heritage assets. In addition the proposal requires the removal of 2 trees of merit. Such concerns were central to detailed pre-application discussions and the development proposal submitted in this application has been reduced and refined as a result. It is considered that the application as pr esented is acceptable, in addition it generates a number of material planning benefits such as the removal of unsightly extensions to a locally listed building, the re-use of a brownfield site and the 45

delivery of keyworker housing to support a sub-regional health facility and the biggest employer in the Borough

9.4.12 The development proposal is therefore considered to comply with the aims and objectives of Policies DM9 and DM17 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies, The Western Urban Area Character SPD and the NPPF.

9.5 The proposals impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and the level of amenity afforded to future residents

9.5.1 The eastern boundary of the site is shared with no.121 Portsmouth Road and Chantry Court.

9.5.2 Block X is sited within 5m of the shared boundary with No. 121 and extends 13.5m in depth, approximately 8m beyond the rear elevation of No. 121. Block X would stand 11m to the ridge and 5.4m to the eaves. No.121 has a first floor window in the side elevation and also benefits from a single storey timber and glass lean too addition which sits hard up to the shared boundary. While it is noted that the development proposal would result in the occupiers having a different outlook to that ex perienced now, it is considered the separation distance of 5m to the boundary and 6.5m to the flank elevation of No.121 would be sufficient to prevent any harm to amenities arising.

9.5.3 Block D, and the dwellinghouses proposed in Block C would face Cha ntry Court. However proposed dwellings C-01to C-06 would be buffered from that development by the rear gardens proposed to those units and the garages serving Chantry Court. This would provide a significant buffer (in excess of 30m) between the rear elev ations of the proposed dwellings houses and ‘The Collisters’ which lie beyond the garages serving Chantry Court. Proposed dwellings C-07 to C-10 and the units proposed in Block D would be sited closest to the flats in Chantry Court however a distance of between 30 and 40m would be retained between the respective elevations and it is considered this is acceptable and would prevent significant harm arising to the occupiers of those properties.

9.5.4 Block D would also have an oblique relationship with no ’s 22 to 36 Church Road. However given the separation distance (in excess of 22m) it is not considered this relationship would be harmful.

9.5.5 A separation distance of in excess of 40m would be retained between the front elevation of Block A and Winte rbourne situated on the opposite side of the road. Given this distance and the screening to the front boundary of Winterbourne it is not considered that a harmful relationship would result.

9.5.6 The proposed development is a relatively high density sc heme and this is reflected in the proposed site coverage and in turn the amount of amenity space to be provided. Block B in particular has as close relationship with both Block A with a limited separation (of approximately 8.5m at the closest point) betwe en these units and a similar relationship will exist between Block D and Block Z with a pinch point of approximately 8m between these blocks. In addition the proposal does not seek to provide amenity space to the keyworker units and flats/ apartments, ho wever given the nature of the occupancy of these units and, recognition of the fact that such relationships are not unusual in higher density residential schemes it is not considered the resulting living arrangements would be harmful nor warrant the refusa l of the proposal. The development proposal is therefore 46

considered to comply with the aims and objectives of Policy DM9 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

9.6 Housing mix, tenure and the loss of key worker units

9.6.1 Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy requires developments of more than 15 units to provide 40% of those units for affordable housing (AH). This provision is to be made on site and applies to the market housing proposed in Blocks A, B, C and D. The applicants hav e sought to demonstrate that the scheme is not viable if an affordable housing contribution is made.

9.6.2 Consideration of viability of a proposal and as a consequence the schemes ability to contribute to affordable housing is supported by the NPPF, wh ich stresses the need to have deliverable development (para 173); and, the subtext to Policy CP5 which recognises the current problems in the housing market (para 5.28 of the Core Strategy). On this basis the detail submitted with the application has been considered by the Council’s Surveyor who identifies a few minor errors in it. However, these are not fatal to the assessment undertaken and the Council’s Surveyor confirms that the scheme would not be viable if a AH contribution were made. On this basis n o objection is raised to an AH contribution not being made.

9.6.3 Policy CP6 requires the provision of a suitable mix of types and size of dwellings be provided within developments in order that a range of housing needs be met. Given the nature of the development proposal is it considered reasonable to only apply this Policy requirement to the market housing being proposed.

9.6.4 The proposed mix of 1x one bed, 23 x two bed and 10 x four bed equates 3% 1 bed units, 67% two bed units and 30% four b ed units and not does not comply with percentage mix prescribed by the Policy (this being 10% 1 bed, 40% 2 bed, 40% 3 bed and 10% 4+ bed), however, the proposed market housing does seek to deliver 70% of the units as small units and on this basis it is con sidered the proposal seeks to address the housing needs of the Borough. No objection is therefore raised in respect of Policy CP5.

9.6.5 As mentioned the proposed key worker is to replace existing units on Frimley Park Hospital. The existing provision a mounts to 113 bed spaces of which 21 spaces (contained within Oakhall are to be retained). 92 spaces contained within 4 purposes built 3 storey blocks dating from the early 1970’s are to be replaced by the 86 bed spaces proposed in Blocks X, Y and Z. Whi le it is noted this would result in a loss of 6 spaces it is accepted that the existing keyworker accommodation on FPH is in poor condition and substandard and fails to meet British Medical Standards prescribed by Department for Health Circular 2000/036 an d Junior Doctors Committee Guidance on New Standards for Living and Working Conditions for Hospital Doctors in Training. The information submitted in support of the application notes that the implications for failing to meet these standards are severe and include a sanction on the advertisement of training posts. Against this backdrop it is considered the provision of key worker which the meets the required standards is a planning gain and this offsets the loss of 6 substandard key worker bedspaces. No objection is therefore raised in this respect.

9.7 Parking provision and highway safety

9.7.1 The application site is considered to be in a sustainable location served by a range of local facilities and public transport connections. Notwithstanding th is there will obviously be car movements to and from the site. These are quantified in the submitted transport statement which indicates that there will be 96 two way movements per day (11 of these two way movements occurring during both peak period of 0800 – 0900 and 1700 to 1800hrs) arising from the proposed market housing.

9.7.2 A similar assessment has been undertaken in respect of the proposed key worker accommodation and it is stated that this element of the proposal would result in 81 two way vehicular movements, of which 11 would arise in the am peak and 8 in the pm peak.

9.7.3 Taken as whole, the proposal would therefore result in 177 two way trips of which 22 would occur in the am peak and 19 in the pm peak.

9.7.4 These figures compare favourably with the baseline figures (for the existing use) which details a total of 578 two way movements occurring between 0700 and 1900. Of these 50 two way trips are stated to occur during the am peak and 36 during the pm peak. The proposed development of the site would therefore result in a significant reduction in the number of vehicular movements from the site. It is however noted that there would be a slight increase in traffic on the local road network. This is not consi dered to be significant and no objection is raised.

9.7.5 The application site is to be accessed by vehicular traffic from Church Road using the existing access towards to the north east end of the site frontage, while the existing entry only access at the south western end of Church Lane is to be closed. In addition a new pedestrian and cycle access is to be provided directly to Portsmouth Road and this will allow keyworkers to access the cycle route and local footpath connections to FPH and the wider area and promote sustainable transport. The Crime Reduction Officers comments are noted in respect of preventing motorcycles using this otherwise pedestrian access / cycle access. However the measures described would also prevent emergency vehicle access . On this basis a compromise solution is to ensure that the access is securely gated and fitted with a key pad mechanism to enable emergency vehicles and residents to gain access. In addition the access could be lit and this, its linear nature and short length would address concerns about the safety of users. (Pleas e refer to conditions 12 and 13).

9.7.6 The key worker accommodation would comprise 19 x 4 bed units and 10 x 1 bed flats. This accommodation is to be served by 40 parking spaces. This is considered to be acceptable given the accessibility of the site and the nature of the accommodation. In addition is it noted that the existing keyworker accommodation at FPH does not benefit from any parking provision.

9.7.7 The market flats are to be provided with 1 parking space per unit together with 1 secure cycle parking space. This accords with County standards and is considered to be acceptable. The market dwellinghouses are to be provided with 2 parking spaces per unit while secure cycle parking spaces could be located within the rear amenity areas of

these units. In addition 3 visitor parking spaces and 1 disabled parking space are shown on the submitted drawings.

9.7.8 Swept path analysis drawings have been submitted with the proposal and these show how refuse vehicles can access and leave the site in forward gear. In addition the County Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal. In light of the inform ation above it is considered the proposal complies with the aims and objection of Policies CP11 and DM11 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

9.8 Impact on Ecology and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

9.8.1 The application is support ed by a Phase 1 survey with further work (a phase 2 survey) recently commissioned in respect of Bats. This is because while no evidence of Bats using the site was found during the Phase 1, it was noted that 3 of the buildings on site had features attracti ve to roosting bats. The Phase 2 survey has been sent to Surrey Wildlife Trust who act as the Council’s consultant on ecological matters. However, for advice, the Phase 2 survey recorded a number of emergences of common pipistrelle bats from Beech House (in the western corner of the site), a soprano pipistrelle from the Children’s Centre and a common pipistrelle was recorded emerging from the building to the north of the site. The survey concludes that the impact on roosting opportunities can be mitig ated by the provision of six Schwegler bat boxes in mature trees to be retained and the creation of a dedicated roost in the roof void of Block Z. SWT’s comments on the acceptability of the proposed mitigation will be provided by way of an update.

9.8.2 In addition the Phase 1 assessment notes that the isolated position of the site, its urban surroundings and structure and composition of habitat indicates that the site has negligible potential to support badgers, dormice, reptiles or great crested newts . The proposed re-development will however result in a loss of vegetation however given the site characteristics any residual impacts will be negligible.

9.8.3 The site is also located within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and as such any net increas e in units (and by this the relevant issue is any net increase in like for like bedspaces) needs to ensure the integrity of the SPA is not impacted upon. To this end in January 2012 the Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoid ance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document 2012 which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the Borough and establishes that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contrib ution towards SANGS. In this instance a contribution of £207,424 (including a SAMM contribution of £19,054) would be required. This figure is calculated on the basis that the proposed key worker accommodation (19x4 and 10x1 bed apartments) would replace a ccommodation currently provided at Frimley Park Hospital. Against this backdrop SPA mitigation is required for the remainder of the proposal (1 one bed unit, 23 two bed units and 9 four bed units).

9.8.4 Subject to the completion of a satisfactory lega l agreement to secure mitigation to ensure no harm arises to the integrity of the SPA and, also to ensure a timely decanting mechanism for the existing key worker accommodation on Frimley Park Hospital [such 49

that no net increase in units would arise] the p roposal would comply with the aims and objectives of Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, Policy CP14 of the Surre y Heath Core Strategy 2012 and the Adopted Avoidance Strategy.

9.9 The proposals impact on the infrastructure of the Borough

9.9.1 Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy underpins the Council’s Adopted SPD entitled ‘ Developers Contributions’ and set outs the Council’s approach to securing mitigation towards infrastructure ar ising from new private (or market housing) development. This removes the requirement for the key worker units to provide any mitigation but does mean that the proposed market housing should mitigate its impact on the infrastructure of the Borough. Accor dingly contributions towards education, transport, libraries, open space/sport, indoor facilities, community facilities and waste and recycling would ordinarily be sought. However as set out at para 9.5.2 of this report (in relation to AH) the applicants have submitted a viability case seeking to demonstrate that the scheme would be unviable if required to meet this Policy requirement. This information has been assessed and found to be credible. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and compliant with the aims and objectives of Policies CP12 and DM14.

10.0 OTHER MATTERS

10.1 The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and has an area of less than 1ha, accordingly it was not necessary to provide a Food Risk Assessment and the Environment Agency’s re sponse indicates no objection to the proposal, while the comments in respect of a 5m buffer can be dealt with by condition. A drainage strategy has been submitted with the proposal and this has been passed to the Drainage Officer for consideration as par t of the standard consultation process. Any comments forthcoming will be provided as an update to the Committee.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 The principle of the redevelopment of the site supported. The development proposed is considered to be acceptable in terms of its quantum and design, and in addition, no harm would arise to any material planning consideration. The delivery of keyworker accommodation should be afforded material weight in justifying a grant of planning permission. Accordingly it is cons idered that planning permission should be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement as set out in section 2 of this report.

12.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

12.1 In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to se ek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

50 b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that t he application was correct and could be registered. c) Have suggested/accepted/negotiated amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development. d) Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescale or recommendation.

05 2013/0447 Reg Date 28/06/2013 Bagshot

LOCATION: LAND AT PENNYHILL PARK HOTEL AND SPA, LONDON ROAD, BAGSHOT, GU19 5EU PROPOSAL: Erection of a Marquee for use as a temporary Rugby Football Union training centre. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Rugby Football Union OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application seeks a 1-year temporary planning permission for the erection of a Marquee for Rugby Training use. An application for the redevelopment o f the former site of the marquee to provide a part single storey part two storey building for use as a Rugby Football Union training centre was recently approved and the development is required for a temporary period during the construction of the new permanent building.

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

• The principle of development and the impact on the Countryside

• The impact of the development on residential amenities

• The impact of the development on highway safety

1.3 The report concludes that there is no objection to the provision of this temporary building given that permission has recently been granted for a permanent building for a similar use. The development wo uld not impact on the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the surrounding properties and would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within one year of the date of this permission.

2. The permission hereby granted shall be limited to the period expiring on the 30th September 2014 on or before which date the use permitted marquee shall be removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition.

Reason: This is a temporary consent and the development should be removed when the permanent rugby training building is completed, in the interests of Policy CP2 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

3. Prior to the commencement of development a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include :

1. Details of the car parking management for large events where it is known that the car parking provided as a result of this application is likely to be insufficient 2. A map or plan indicating the location of proposed overflow parking within the site and routes for vehicles to access this parking 3. Contact details for the Car Parking Manager

Once approved the Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and there shall be no variation from the approved Plan unless previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the temporary loss of parking does not impact on the local highway network and prejudice to highway safety and in accordance with Policy CP11 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy 2012.

4. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 13639-050 and 13639-051, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

3.2 Relevant planning history

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site comprises land within the grounds of Pennyhill Park Hotel which is located on north side of the A30 (London Road) between Camberley a nd Bagshot. The hotel includes overnight accommodation and various supporting conference and leisure facilities including restaurants, a spa, a golf course and tennis courts.

4.2 The application site extends to approximately 1,400m² and is located approx imately 100m south of the main Hotel building and is within the hotels primary car park. The site is bounded by woods to the west and a shooting area to the south with the car park adjoin the north and east boundaries of the site. Access to the applicati on site is from the existing internal access road which joins the public highway at the A30.

4.3 The site is currently surfaced with tarmac and includes marked parking bays. The site slopes down from northwest to southeast with approximately a 2m level c hange across the site.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 There is extensive planning history in relation to the wider site, the following history is relevant to the use of the site for rugby training:

SU/2001/1254 Erection of two detached buildings to provide changing facilities and equipment store adjacent to the rugby pitch.

Approved 3 rd January 2002

SU/2003/0467 Erection of a new pavilion building to serve rugby pitch and tennis courts with storage space in the roof.

Approved 9 th July 2003

SU/2009/0337 Extension to existing rugby pitch and associated alterations to land level

Approved on 6 th August 2009

SU/2013/0448 Erection of a part single storey part two storey building for use as a Rugby Football Union training centre.

Approved 28/08/2013

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The application seeks a 1-year temporary planning permission for the erection of a Marquee for Rugby Training use. The marquee would have a floor area of approximately 900m² and would have a height of approximately 8m measured from the floor of the marquee to the ridge.

6.2 An application for the redevelopment of the former site of the marquee to provide a part single storey part two storey building for use as a Rugby Football Union training centre was recent approved (SU/13/0448) and the development is required for a tempora ry period during the construction of the new permanent building.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Windlesham Parish No objection to the development proposed. Council

7.2 County Highway No objection to the development proposed subject to conditions. Authority

8.0 REPRESENTATION

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

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt as identified by the proposals map. Accordingly policies CP1, CP14, DM9, DM10, DM11 and DM16 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 (CSDMP) ar e relevant to the consideration of this application. The national planning policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework is also a material consideration.

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

• The principle of development and the impact on the Countryside

• The impact of the development on residential amenities

• The impact of the development on highway safety

• The impact of the development on Biodiversity

9.3 The principle of development and the impact on the Countryside

9.3.1 Planning permission (SU/2013/0448) was recently granted for the erection of a large part single-storey part two-storey building for use as a Rugby Football Union training centre. The pr oposed marquee would be used as a temporary gym and training area during the construction of the new building and would replace a marquee previously located on the site of the new building.

9.3.2 The principle of the use of the site for elite rugby traini ng is established and it is reasonable to allow for the provision of this temporary facility while the recently approved development is constructed. The development would be located within an existing car park and would therefore have little impact on the visual amenity value of the Countryside. Any impact would also be limited to the period of the temporary consent and the site would be returned to its current condition following the expiry of any planning permission granted.

9.3.3 Accordingly it is con sidered that the development meets the objectives of policies CP1, DM9 and DM16 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and complies with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9.4 The impact of the development on residential amenities

9.4.1 The application site is located within the grounds of the existing hotel and accordingly is set well away from residential properties. The closest residential properties to the ap plication site are those located on London Road close to the access to the hotel however even these properties are some 250 metres from the proposed development. Given the significant distances and screening between the proposed development and the surrou nding residential properties, it is concluded that the development not would materially impact on the amenities the occupants of these properties currently enjoy. The proposed building would provide temporary training facilities while the new training cen tre is constructed and would not increase in the intensity of the use of the site. It is not considered that the development would give rise to any significant increase in noise or disturbance resulting from the use of this part of the hotel site for rugby training.

9.4.2 Having regard to the above it is considered that the application meets the relevant objectives of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and no objection should be raised to the proposal on these grounds.

9.5 The impact of the development on highway safety

9.5.1 The application site is accessed through the main car park which is served by the main access road within the hotel site, which in turn links to the public highway at the A30 (Lond on Road). There is unlikely to be any increase in the number of movements to or from the site and the existing access has good visibility in both directions. The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the application on highway safety grounds.

9.5.2 The application site would result in the loss of approximately 70 parking spaces available to serve the hotel and various other uses on this site leaving 385 spaces available for the duration that the marquee is erected. The applicant has howeve r confirmed that there will be sufficient capacity in the remaining car park to accommodate all staff and visitors. They have also advised that on occasions when the hotel is aware that there may be capacity issues, this will be managed by hotel staff wit hin the grounds and could include measures such as managing the car park to increase efficiently, requesting staff not to come by car on those days, and providing for staff to park elsewhere with the grounds.

9.5.3 The County Highway Authority has conside red the level of parking and has advised that, subject to a condition to secure a car park management plan, they are satisfied that sufficient parking will be available to meet the needs of the wider Pennyhill Park Hotel site and a suitable condition is se t out above. Subject to this condition it is considered that the application meets the objectives of Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012 and no objection should be raised to the proposal on these grounds.

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

10.1 In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided fee dback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 There is no objection to the provision of this temporary building given that permission has recently been granted for a permanent building for a similar use. The development would not impact on the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the sur rounding properties and would not give rise to conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

06 2013/0484 Reg Date 05/07/2013 Watchetts

LOCATION: 14 BRACKENDALE ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 2JN PROPOSAL: Erection of two 4 bedroom detached dwelling houses with attached garage following demolition of existing dwelling house. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Hoskins Homes Ltd OFFICER: Chenge Taruvinga

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application proposes the erection of 2 detached two storey dwellings following the demolition of existing dwellinghouse. The proposed development would result in the creation of a two plots of similar size with 4 bedroom dwellings and integral garages.

1.2 It is considered that the main is sues to be addressed by the committee in determining this application are:

• The principle of the development

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

• The impact on residential amenities

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

• The impact on trees

• The impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

• The impact on Local Infrastructure Provision.

1.3 It is considered that the proposed development wou ld integrate well within this setting, and as such accord with the design, character and amenity considerations set out in Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. The proposed development would not result in the loss of significant trees or have a significant impact on parking or highway safety.

1.4 Therefore this application is subject to a dual recommendation to approve if mitigation in relation to the impact on the SPA and local infrastructure is secured by the 24 th of October 2013.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 1:

Defer and Delegate and subject to the completion of a suitable obligation to secure the following:

4. A financial contribution of £8,160.00 to mitigate the impact of the development of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area, in accordance with the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD.

5. A financial contribution £13,718.33 to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure, in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD.

The Executive Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to APPROVE the application subject to the following conditions:

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

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

2. No development shall take place until d etails and samples of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Materials to be agreed will include the proposed 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 Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

3. The development shall be built i n accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prepared by ACD and dated 03/07/2013. In addition, prior to the commencement of any development including works of site clearance or preparation, a scheme setting out details of a pre-commencement site meeting (to be arranged a minimum of 5 working days in advance) to agree tree protection fencing, ground protection, all facilitation pruning works as detailed in the ACD Tree Survey Report, Arboricultural supervision of excavatio n works and the frequency of inspection visits along with a reporting process to the Tree Officer shall be submitted to and approved by, the LPA in writing. Once approved all construction works must be carried out in strict accordance with these details a nd the submitted Arboricultural Report dated 03/07/2013. In addition, details relating to landscape planting including substantial tree planting to offset the loss of significant trees on the frontage are to be provided and agreed.

Reason: In the interes ts of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

4. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans:1316/PL.01 Rev A, 02 Rev B, 03 Rev A, 04 Rev A, 05, 06, 07 Rev A, 08 Rev A, 09 Rev A, 10, 11, 12 Rev A, 13 Rev A, 14, 15 , unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

5. No development shall take place until details of the surface water drainage of the site have been submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any approved scheme should be designed so as to prevent the discharge of water onto the public highway and should be provided prior to the first occupation of the approved development.

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 Policy DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

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 6pm 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 the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:

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. The garages hereby permitted shall be retained for such purpose only and shall not be converted into living accommodation without the prior consent in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of on-site parking accommodation and to accord with Policy CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5 59

Recommendation 2:

In the event that a satisfactory legal agreement is not completed by the 24 of October 2013, the Executive Head of Regulatory Services be authorised to refuse the application for the following reasons: 6. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the 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 protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in the NPPF and Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012 and Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012).

7. In the absence of a completed legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the applicant has failed to comply with Policy CP12 (Infrastructure Delivery and Implementation) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy 2012 in relation to the provision of infrastructure contributions towards primary education, transport, libraries, play spaces, recycling and community facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Surrey Heath Borough Council Developer Contributions SPD.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Planning History

3.2 Consultation Responses

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The application site is located within Camberley within a primarily residential setting characterised by detached dwellings of mostly two storey construction on fairly large plots. Of particular importance within this setting is the verdant character of th e area with mature trees positioned along the street frontage and within each plot.

4.2 The application site is characterised by a detached two storey dwelling of 1950’s construction. The existing dwellinghouse on the site offers some unique traditional features including tile hung walls and wood framed windows. However it is presently unoccupied and as surrounded with low level overgrown vegetation. There is evidence of site clearance works that have been undertaken prior to the submission of the applica tion with many significant trees on the site having been felled. As such, it is now a fairly open site 60

with just the presence of a few remaining trees of which the most notable being the mature Beech Tree positioned centrally within the front garden area o f the site. The land levels on the site are fairly even.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 FRI1475 Road layout and construct 52 building plots

Approved 03/01/1956

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the erection of 2 four bedroom detached two storey dwellings with integral double garages, and associated parking following the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse. An additional access would be created to serve Plot 2 to the eastern boundary of the site. The proposed dwellings would have a similar footprint and floor plan layout but would offer marginally different elevational treatments. Each of the dwellings proposed would occupy a similar building line to that of neigh bouring properties on this street frontage with the only variance being the forward projection of the attached garages. The proposed plots, though narrowing to the rear, would have a relatively similar width as that of most neighbouring properties along this side of the Brackendale Road.

6.2 Plot 1 would have a depth of 42 metres and a width of 28 metres at its widest. The proposed dwelling on Plot 1 would be to a ridge height of 9.4 metres with an eaves height of 5.4 metres and would span 20 metres across the site. On-site parking for a minimum of 2 vehicles would be provided on the front driveway.

6.3 Plot 2 would be to a width of 29 metres and a maximum depth of 40 metres at it widest. The proposed dwellinghouse on Plot 2 would be to a height of 9. 4 metres at the ridge reducing to 5.4 metres at the eaves. The proposed dwelling would also span 20 metres across the site. On-site parking for a minimum of 2 vehicles would be provided on the front driveway.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County No Objection subject to conditions Highway Authority

7.2 Tree Officer No objection subject to conditions

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report two representations of support had been received

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as identified by the proposals map and as such policies CP1, CP2, CP6, DM9 and DM11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policie s 2012 and the policies contained 61

within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 are relevant.

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

8. The principle of the development

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

• The impact on residential amenities

• The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

• The impact on trees

• The impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

• The impact on Local Infrastructure provision.

9.3 The principle of the development and type of housing proposed

9.3.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as identified on the proposal map of the Surrey Heath Core Strat egy and Development Management Policies 2012. Within the settlement area the principle of residential development is generally acceptable. It is however noted that the NPPF removes ‘private residential gardens’ from the definition of Previously Developed Land and this is a material consideration in determining this application. In this instance the site includes what was formerly private residential garden land. Accordingly the site cannot be considered to be Previously Developed Land.

9.3.2 The NPPF states that Previously Developed Land (PDL) should be the primary source of delivering housing however it acknowledges that this is not the only source of housing land and that new housing should be directed to sustainable locations with good acce ss to jobs, services and infrastructure. Given Surrey Heath currently has a poor housing land supply the development of some sites which are not PDL are likely to be required to deliver the level of housing demanded. As such land which is not PDL can be considered for housing provided it can clearly be shown that the presumption against development can be outweighed by the need for the housing, and there is no harm to other factors of recognised importance. No objection should therefore be raised to the principle of development.

9.4 Impact on the character of area

9.4.1 The application site is located in an area which is residential in character, and typified by detached properties on spacious plots. The properties all front the highway in a traditional manner and have defined front gardens generally behind mature boundary hedges. The dwellings are exclusively two-storey.

9.4.2 The site comprises a detached two storey dwelling set within a plot that is considerably wider than most neighbouring plots i n this vicinity. Most properties on this street frontage are on fairly spacious but predominantly rectangular plots as seen at 8, 10, 12, 16 and 20 Brackendale Road. As such, it is considered that the subdivision of the application site into two plots woul d maintain the established character of this particular street scene. In 62

this context the proposed siting of the plots is considered to be respectful to the spatial characteristics of the neighbouring properties, and the wider street scene and would not ap pear cramped or over developed. There would be a separation distance of 6.5 metres between the nearest flank wall on the proposed dwelling on Plot 1 and the neighbouring dwelling at 12 Brackendale Road. The proposed dwellings on Plot 1 and 2 would be separated by a minimum distance of 4. 5 metres.

9.4.3 The proposed rear garden areas to serve each of the two plots would narrow towards the rear. By way of comparison, however, the size of the proposed rear garden areas would be similar to that of many prope rties in close proximity to the site. For instance, the rear garden areas of 8, 10, 18, and 20 Brackendale Road are only marginally larger than the proposed garden areas to serve Plots 1 and 2. As such, though it is noted that the proposed garden areas are irregular in appearance, their size and spatial character would not detract from the established layout of this area.

9.4.4 It is considered that while the existing dwelling on site offers some pleasant traditional features including wood framed window s, and tile hung walls it makes no significant contribution to the wider street scene. The wider street scene offers two storey dwellings principally characterised by a mixture of front facing gables and hipped roof formations, with a varied massing at fir st floor level. The hipped roof design of the dwellinghouses proposed on Plot 1 and Plot 2, along with sympathetic massing of the units at first floor level, in combination, contribute to a design solution that reflects the scale of development and the architectural features prevailing in this particular locality.

9.4.5 It is noted that the proposed attached garages would protrude beyond the established building line on this part of the street scene. However, the limited height of the garages at 5.4 metre s in height, along with the set back from the street frontage of 7.5 metres for Plot 1 and 5.2 metres for Plot 2 in combination limit any potential visual harm the proposed garages may have on to the wider street scene. As such, it is considered that the proposed dwellings would integrate well between each themselves and with the wider street scene. The proposal complies with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.5 Impact on Residential Amenity

9.5.1 The application site shares common boundaries with residential properties at 12 Brackendale Road to the west and 16 Brackendale Road to the east respectively.

Plot 1 would be closest to 12 Brackendale Road with a separation distance of 6.5 metres between t he flank wall of the application dwelling and that of this neighbouring dwelling. The common boundary between Plot 1 and 12 Brackendale Road is characterised by a significant level of mature vegetation including a mature Coast Redwood, thereby affording a fairly dense screen for the occupants of this neighbouring property. The forward projection of the proposed attached garage is not considered to have a significant impact on the amenities of the occupants of 12 Brackendale Road as the aforementioned screen ing on the common boundary, separation distances and the single storey nature of this aspect of the proposal would mitigate against any material detriment. In light of the above, it is considered that the distances which would exist between the proposed dw elling on Plot 1 and the main habitable rooms and primary garden areas of 12 Brackendale Road are enough to ensure that the development would not result in an 63

un-neighbourly or overbearing form of development for the occupants of this neighbouring property.

9.5.2 Plot 2 would be sited in close proximity to the neighbouring property to east at 16 Brackendale Road. This neighbouring dwelling is sited at an easterly facing angle, with its rear flank in closer proximity to the proposed dwelling on Plot 2. Th e flank wall of Plot 2 would be positioned 8.5 metres from the nearest flank wall of the dwellinghouse at 16 Brackendale Road. There is a significant level of vegetation positioned along this common boundary, providing some screening between the two proper ties. Given that the dwellinghouse at 16 Brackendale Road sits at an angle away from the application site, the forward projection of the attached double garage would not have any material impact on the amenities that the occupants of 16 Brackendale Road cu rrently enjoy. In light of the above, it is considered that the distances which would exist between the proposed dwelling on Plot 2 and the main habitable rooms and primary garden areas of 16 Brackendale Road are enough to ensure that the development would not result in an un-neighbourly or overbearing form of development for the occupants of this neighbouring property.

9.5.3 The common boundary between Plot 1 and Plot 2 would be characterised by a fence and hedging. The dwellinghouse proposed on Plot 2 would project beyond the front elevation of the dwellinghouse on Plot 1 by approximately 1.7 metres. There is a separation distance of 4.4 metres between the flank walls of the two units. The separation distance between the two dwellings, along with the sc reening proposed on site boundaries and the sympathetic roof style proposed would limit any significant overbearing impact, loss of light or privacy to the occupants of either property. As such, no impact on the residential amenities of the future occupiers of these two dwellings is envisaged.

9.5.4 The proposed rear garden areas for both Plot 1 and Plot 2 are considered to be of a size and quality that is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a normal 4 bedroom family home. As such, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated a satisfactory level of amenity provision for the proposed residential dwellings.

9.5.5 It is therefore considered that the development proposed would provide a suitable level of amenity for the future occupants. The p roposed development would not significantly impact on the amenities that the occupants of neighbouring dwellings enjoy and as such complies Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

9.6 Impact on Highway Safety and Parking

9.6.1 The proposal would result in the creation of an additional access on the site to accommodate the dwellinghouse proposed on Plot 2. In addition to the double garages proposed within each plot, there would be suff icient parking provision for at least two vehicles on the front driveways. The County Highway Authority have undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority therefore has no highway requirements. The proposed development therefore

complies with Policy DM11 of the Surrey H eath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.6.2 On this basis, the proposed development accords with Policy DM11 and CP11 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.7 Impact on Trees

9.7.1 At the ti me of this application a few significant trees had been felled on the application site. The applicant seeks to retain a mature Beech Tree currently sited within the front garden area of the existing property. This tree would be a central feature for both o f the proposed dwellings. In addition to this a Eucalyptus Tree would be retained along the rear boundary of the site. The Council’s Tree Officer has assessed the Arboricultural Method Statement submitted with the planning application and raises no objecti on to the proposal subject to the compliance with Condition 3 which requires site supervision and additional tree planting to mitigate against the loss of trees on the site.

9.7.2 On this basis an objection is raised on tree grounds and the proposal conflicts with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

9.8 The impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

9.8.1 The application site is located within 1.7 km of the Thames Basin Heaths Sp ecial Protection Area (SPA). Natural England are currently advising that new residential development within 5 km of the protected site has the potential to adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in gene ral recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 1 residential unit and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site.

9.8.2 In January 2012 the Council adopt ed the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments on the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. In this instance a contribution of £8,160.00 would be required.

9.8.3 Subject to the completion of an appropriate legal undertaking, by the 24 th of October 2013 to secure the mitigation contribution for the SPA, no objection to the development would be raised on SPA grounds. Without this agreement in place the development would conflict with the objectives of Policy CP14 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012, and the Thames Bas in Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document (Adopted January 2012). 9.9 The impact on local infrastructure provision

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

9.9.2 In this instance the development proposes the erection of 2 detached 4 bedroom market dwellings following the demolition of the existing dwelling house. As such a total contribution of £13,718.00 is required which would b e put towards primary education, transport, libraries, equipped play space, community facilities, indoor sports, and recycling, to ensure the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated.

9.9.3 Subject to the completion of an appropriate legal undertaking, by the 24 th of October 2013, to secure contributions towards infrastructure no objection to the development would be raised on these grounds.

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEME NT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER

In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included the following:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided feedback through the validation process i ncluding information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered.

c) Have proactively communicated wi th the applicant through the process to advise progress, timescale or recommendation.

11.0 CONCLUSION

11.1 It is considered that the proposed development would integrate well within this setting, and as such accord with the design, character and amenity considerations set out in Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012. The proposed development would not result in the loss of significant trees or have a significant impact on parking or highway safety. As such , subject to the completion of legal undertakings in relation to Special Protection Area mitigation and to secure Planning Infrastructure Contributions, by the 24 th of October 2013, it is recommended that the application be approved.

07 2013/0564 Reg Date 13/08/2013 Town

LOCATION: 34 COLLEGE RIDE, CAMBERLEY, GU15 4JS PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Ms Shennan OFFICER: Shane O'Donnell

This application would normally be determined by the Head of Regulatory Services under the Scheme of Delegation. However the applicant has received a Disabled Facilities Grant from Surrey Heath Borough Council. Therefore the application falls to be decided by the Committee.

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This full planning application proposes the erection of a single storey side extension to form a bedroom and en-suite.

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

• The impact on the character and appearance of the area • The impact on neighbouring residential amenities

1.3 This report concludes that the proposed development would respect the character of the surrounding development and would not detract from the character or the quality of the area. The development would not materially impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties a nd would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

GRANT subject to the following conditions:-

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

2. The building works, hereby approved, shall be constructed in external fascia materials; brick, tile, bonding and pointing, to match those of the existing building.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to accord with Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

3. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following approved plans: 1656/05 02, unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

3. Party Walls (etc) Act 1996 DE3

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS 3.1 Consultation responses and letters of representation.

3.2 Relevant planning history.

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

4.2 College Ride is located in an area classified as a 'Post War Council Estate' within the Western Urban Area SPD 2012. The street scene is characterised by a mixture of detached and semi-detached two storey dwellings on narrow with small front gardens and larger rear gardens. The rear gardens of properties on College Ride back onto the rear gardens of properties on Upland Road.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY None.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL 6.1 The full planning application relates to the erection of a single storey side extension to provide a bedroom and en-suite.

6.2 The proposed single storey side exten sion has a length of 5.7 metres, and a width of 3.2 metres. The proposal would have a mono-pitched roof with a maximum height of 4.2 metres reducing to an eaves height of 2.6 metres.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES 7.1 Surrey County Highway No Objections. Authority

7.2 Historic Buildings Advisor No Objections.

8.0 REPRESENTATIONS At the time of the preparation of this application, no letters of representation have been received.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION 9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area of Camberley as is identified on the proposals map of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Document 2012. As such Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Do cument 2012 is applicable to the consideration of this application along with the principles contained in the Western Urban Area Character SPD 2012.

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

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

• The impact on neighbouring residential amenities.

• The impact on parking and highway safety.

9.2 Impact on Character of Area

9.2.1 The proposed extension is to the side of the property, and would be visible within the street scene. However, the proposed extension is single storey, modest in scale, not extending the length of the existing dwellinghouse. The neighbouring property No 36 College Ride has an attached side garage. The proposed single storey side extension would be sympathetic to that built form and would not look out of place in the streetscene. There is also precedence in the streetscene at 33 College Ride for a mono-pitche d single storey side extension that maintains a gap in the roofscape for a large first floor landing window. The proposal represents a subservient addition in terms of scale, and would not be out of keeping with the character of the application property an d the immediate surroundings, It is considered that the extension would respect the character and appearance of the application property, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

9.2.2 It is considered that the proposal would comply with the de sign requirements of Policy DM9 of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2012, and respects the character and appearance of the property, neighbouring properties and the surrounding area.

9.3 Impact Upon Residential Amenity

9.3.1 The proposed side extension would be 0.2 metres from the shared boundary with No 36 College Ride. However, there is an existing attached garage meaning tha t the proposed side extension is 3.5 metres from the side elevation of No 36 College Ride. There are no windows in the side elevation of No 36 College Ride that face the proposed extension. Taking into account the length of the proposed extension and the p resence of the attached garage, the proposed extension would not have a significant impact on the rear amenity space of No 36 College Ride. Given the lack of windows facing the proposed extension, the length and eaves height of the proposal, and the existi ng built form, it is not envisaged that the proposed development would result in significant overbearing impact, loss of light or any other detriment to the amenities that the occupants of No 36 College Ride.

9.3.2 The proposed development is significantly separated from other neighbouring properties and there is adequate screening to ensure there would be no loss of residential amenity to occupants.

9.3.3 As such, it is considered that this proposal complies with Policy DM9 (Design Principles) of the Surrey Heath Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2012.

9.4 Impact on Parking and Access

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

10.0 ARTICLE 2(3) DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) ORDER 2012 WORKING IN A POSITIVE/PROACTIVE MANNER In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs 186-187 of the NPPF. This included the following:

a) Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

b) Provided feedback through the validation process including information on the website, to correct identified problems to ensure that the application was correct and could be registered.

11.0 CONCLUSION 11.1 This report concludes that the development proposed would respect the c haracter of the surrounding development and would not detract from the character or the quality of the area. The development would not materially impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the adjoining residential properties and would not result in conditions prejudicial to highway safety.