16/P/00120 – Warren Farm, White Lane, Ash

Not to scale

N

App No: 16/P/00120 Type: F 8 Wk Deadline: 15/04/2016 Appn Type: Full Application Case Officer: Lisa Botha Parish: Ash Ward: Ash South & Tongham Agent : Mr Smith

AECOM MidCity Place 71 High Holborn London London WC1V 6QS

Applicant: BlackOnyx Guildford Limited 12a Savile Row London London W1S 3PQ

Location: Warren Farm, White Lane, Ash, Guildford, GU12 6HW Proposal: Full application for the erection of 58 dwellings (including

affordable dwellings) with access, parking, amenity space, equipped playspace, hard and soft landscaping and retention of Warren Farm House following demolition of Surrey House and existing outbuildings associated with Warren Farm.

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because 10 letters of objection have been received, contrary to the Officer's recommendation. Site description. The site is located in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt and within 400m- 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The site is irregular shaped piece of land which comprises two residential properties, Warren Farm and Surrey House fronting White Lane, both with vehicle accesses onto White Lane, with their associated domestic outbuildings and an enclosed area to the rear of Warren Farm used for the storage and maintenance of ice cream vehicles (a B8 use). To the north, east and south of this enclosed yard area are open fields which also form part of the application site. There are substantial tree belts to the east and southern boundaries of the site which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order and are also classified as semi-natural ancient woodland. The eastern tree belt extends into the application site. The site is generally flat with a slight fall in a north-west to south-east direction. To the west of the site are residential properties which front White Lane and whose gardens back on to the application site. To the north are houses which front Hazel Road and again the gardens of these properties back onto the application site, however planting along this boundary provides some screening of the site. To the east of the application site is woodland, designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI). To the south, beyond the tree belt, are open fields in agricultural use with land rising up to the Hogs Back. The locally designated Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) starts just south of the site. An area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is located approximately 580m to the south of the application site where the land rises up to the Hogs Back.

Proposal. Full application for the erection of 58 dwellings (including affordable dwellings) with access, parking, amenity space, equipped playspace, hard and soft landscaping and retention of Warren Farm House following demolition of Surrey House and existing outbuildings associated with Warren Farm. Site area: 3.36 ha Dwellings per hectare: 17.6 (including the retained dwelling Warren Farm) Housing mix: a) 35% Affordable units (8 shared ownership and 12 affordable rented): 4 x 1 bed flats 4 x 2 bed flats 6 x 2 bed houses 6 x 3 bed houses

Market homes: 11 x 2 bed houses 27 x 4+ bed houses 131 parking spaces are proposed (17 of which are visitor spaces and 2 of which are retained by Warren Farm) Relevant planning history. Reference: Description: Decision

Summary: Appeal:

14/P/02326 Outline application for the erection of

58 dwellings with access, amenity space and landscaping following demolition of existing buildings (additional information received).

Refuse 25/11/2015

N/A

13/P/01983 Outline application for the erection of

72 dwellings, access roads, parking and amenity space following demolition of Surrey House.

Refuse 12/03/2014

DISM 16/02/2015

Reasons for refusal on 14/P02326

Due to the increased vehicle movements accessing the site, and the severely restricted forward visibility for vehicles approaching the access by vegetation in land outside the applicants control, the proposed development will increase the likelihood of rear shunts, thereby leading to increased danger and inconvenience to other users of the public highway contrary to saved policy G1 (2) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevant Site of Special 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, damage to the habitat and disturbance to the protected species within the protected areas. As such the development is contrary to the objectives of policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and conflicts with saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 61 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, and as the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 62 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

Had the application been considered acceptable, the following contributions would have been required by way of a S.106 agreement:

- a SANG contribution of £253,693.40 and an Access Management contribution of

£47,969.23 in accordance with saved policies NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 and policy G6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/7) and the Thames Basins Heaths Special Protection Area Interim SPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014

- the provision of 0.06 ha amenity space and 0.17 ha children's play space on site, in accordance with saved policies R2 and G6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the Planning Contributions SPD 2011 (updated 2015)

- 35% affordable housing, in accordance with saved policies H11 and G6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the Planning Contributions SPD 2011

The applicant has failed to address these issues in accordance with the aforementioned policies.

The proposed development has failed to demonstrate that the site is capable of accommodating 58 residential units by virtue of the inability to provide sufficient vehicle parking for the occupants of the affordable housing units. The failure to demonstrate that the site is capable of satisfactorily accommodating the level of development sought is contrary to saved policies G1(2) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012.

Consultations. Tongham Parish Council: No objection to the proposed development itself but does object to over-development of the surrounding area as a whole in particular:

concern regarding impact on local infrastructure including doctors surgeries, schools, dentists, churches, play area and the highway

cumulative impact of loss of green space in the Ash and Tongham area

insufficient jobs exist locally to supply the necessary level of employment for the proposed residents resulting in greater commuting and further pressure on the transport system

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Officer: Comments remain unchanged from the previous two schemes where no AONB concerns are raised provided the tree belt along the southern boundary is retained. It is advisable that the trees be subject to a preservation order (Officer note: The trees are already protected by a TPO) Officer note: for ease the AONB Officers comments are copied below: "The line of dwellings fronting White Lane and Hazel Road block any public views across the site to the AONB to the south so it cannot be argued that significant public views to the AONB would be harmed by the development. Public views from the AONB towards the site can be gained passing north down White Lane from the Hogs Back and in glimpses from the A31 in the vicinity of Squires Holt. The application site cannot actually be seen because of a substantial tree belt. For as long as this woodland belt exists it would be highly unlikely any of the development would be noticeable, including in the winter months, because of its density and depth. The omission of development spreading south onto the site of Surrey House as was previously proposed is welcome. If possible this land should be planted with native trees to help provide a buffer between the development, ancient woodland and countryside to the south". County Highway Authority: No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a road safety scheme, the provision of warning signs and anti-skid surfacing on both approaches to the White Lane Junction with Poyle Road, improvements to local bus stops on White Lane, an extension to the 40mph speed limit southwards of its existing location, the vehicular access being provided with the necessary visibility zones, space is laid out for parking and the provision of a Construction Transport Management Plan. A requirement of £7,000 is also required through a legal agreement to improve local bus stops. Natural England: No objection provided the applicant is complying with the Council's Avoidance Strategy. As the proposed SANG is not yet available or established at Ash Lodge Drive a grampian style condition will be required to ensure that no development will take place until the necessary mitigation measures are in place. The SANG will need to be within the relevant catchment area of the development. Surrey Wildlife Trust: Have the following comments and recommendations:

Suitable mitigation measures should be secured under the Council's Avoidance Strategy

The majority of the site is within an area of land registered by the Local Authority as a Biodiversity Area. Particular care should be taken to avoid adverse effects to the biodiversity value of these ecologically important areas of land

The mitigation recommendations made by Peak Ecology in their report section 5.1 should help to protect the ancient woodland habitat together with the 15m buffer between the proposed development and the ancient woodland. The buffer area should be managed and protected under a suitable conservation management regime which could form part of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan for the public parts of the development site.

The applicant should be required to undertake the recommendations in section 5.7 of the Peak Ecology report

The mitigation measures for grass snakes as detailed in the Peak Ecology report should be undertaken

The Trust is aware of anecdotal reports of Slow Worm in the area. A reptile mitigation method statement should be submitted to the Local Authority so that they can be assured that the proposed development can be undertaken without adverse effect to these legally protected species

Suitable habitat for hedgehogs and rarer invertebrates such as Stag Beetles for example should be protected and enhancements should also be proposed

Council's Drainage Consultant: No objection Thames Water:

Waste water: An inability of the existing water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application has been identified. As such, a grampian style condition should be imposed to prevent any development until a drainage strategy detailing any on and / off site drainage works has been submitted to and approved. Furthermore, the developer will be required to finance an impact study.

Surface water drainage: No objection Housing Development Manager: The affordable housing provision and associated parking is exactly as requested by Housing Advice Services and would contribute to meeting the urgent need for affordable housing in the borough. Surrey County Council School Commissioning Officer: The following contributions will be required:

Early years - £38,364 to expand Sunflower Nursery School at Harpers Scout Hut, Ash and the Jack and Jill Nursery, Winchester Road, Ash

Primary education - £238,593 to provide additional classrooms at Ash Grange Primary School to facilitate expansion by 1 form of entry

Secondary education - £275,731 to provide additional general classrooms at St Peter's RC Secondary School to enable the school to increase its capacity and provide places for more children

None of the identified projects has received more than five contributions.

Lead Local Flood Authority: 'We are satisfied that the proposed drainage scheme meets

the requirements set out in the aforementioned documents. We would however recommend that should planning permission be granted, that suitably worded conditions are applied to ensure that the SuDS Scheme is properly implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development.' These conditions relate to exceedance events, construction phasing, management and maintenance and lifelong performance of the pipes and verification that the scheme has been constructed as agreed. Community Care Services (Environmental Health): No objection subject to conditions controlling hours of construction and piling and the imposition of informatives. Third party comments: 28 letters of representation have been received raising the following objections and concerns:

unsustainable location

adverse impact on the character of the area

overdevelopment of the site

highway safety concerns (Officer note: the access to the site and the visibility splays have been considered acceptable by the County Highway Authority and further safety improvements are recommended)

insufficient parking provision on site (Officer note: amended plans have been received to increase the level of parking provision on site)

overlooking of neighbouring properties

potential damage and loss of ancient woodland (Officer note: a condition is recommended to ensure that the ancient woodland is protected during construction works)

increase in traffic

loss of agricultural land

flat roof dormers are not in keeping with Guildford Borough Council's design guide (Officer note: amended plans have been received to remove flat roof dormers)

cumulative impact of developments in the area putting pressure on existing local infrastructure

poor public transport provision

out of scale with the existing village

light pollution

adverse impact on wildlife (Officer note: a condition is recommended to protect existing wildlife and to provide enhancements on the site)

lack of pavements in the local area to enable occupants to access facilities by foot

increase in noise during the construction period (Officer note: a condition is recommended to limit hours of construction to protect neighbouring amenity)

insufficient school places (Officer note: a financial contribution is being sought from the developer towards nursery, primary and secondary education)

insufficient parking spaces available at Ash Railway Station

headlights shining from the access of the site into the residential dwelling opposite

surface water flooding (Officer note: a drainage strategy has been submitted to ensure no surface water flooding occurs)

sewerage system is at full capacity (Officer note: a condition is recommended to ensure that no development takes place until the existing capacity is increased)

Planning policies. The following policies are relevant to the determination of this application. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Achieving sustainable development - core principles Chapter 4. Promoting sustainable transport Chapter 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7. Requiring good design Chapter 8. Promoting healthy communities Chapter 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Chapter 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment South East Plan 2009 NRM6 - Thames Basin Special Protection Area Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007): G5 Design Code

G6 Planning Benefits

H11 Affordable Housing

E3 Safeguarding Existing and Allocated Business, Industrial and Warehousing Land

RE4 Countryside Beyond the Green Belt

RE5 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

RE6 Area of Great Landscape Value

NE1 Potential Special Protection Area

NE3 Local and Non-Statutory Sites

NE4 Species Protection

NE5 Development Affected Trees, Hedges and Woodland

R2 Recreational Open Space Provision in Relation to Large New Residential Developments

G1 General Standards of Development Emerging Local Plan The Council is currently consulting on its Proposed Submission Local Plan: strategy and sites (Regulation 19). This identifies the site as being potentially suitable for residential development for 58 units. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that decision makers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging local plans. Given the Proposed Submission Local Plan is still at consultation stage it is considered that it carries little material weight at this time. Supplementary planning documents. Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2011 Planning Contributions SPD 2011 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009 - 2016 Residential Design SPG 2004 Vehicle Parking Standards SPD 2006 Community Involvement in Planning SPD 2011 Landscape Character Assessment Planning considerations. The main planning considerations in this case are:

summary of Inspectors decision on 13/P/01983

amendments to the dismissed 13/P/01983 scheme

the principle of development

the need and demand for housing in the area

loss of employment land

sustainability

impact on the character and appearance of the area

impact on neighbour amenity

parking considerations

highway considerations

impact on ecology

impact on trees

impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

S.106 requirements

legal agreement requirements

sustainable design and construction

flooding and drainage considerations

Summary of Inspectors decision on 13/P/01983 Although a more recent decision was made on application 14/P/02326, the application site was smaller than that currently proposed by this application. As application 13/P/01983 comprised the same application site as the current application it is considered more relevant. The Inspectors appeal decision of the 2013 application is summarised below:

Principle of the development The Inspector concluded that, in principle, the development of the site would be acceptable.

Existing Trees and Semi-Natural Ancient Woodland The Inspector raised concern that an appropriate buffer was not proposed along the southern boundary of the site to protect the existing trees and semi-natural ancient woodland and that the layout plan demonstrated that many of the trees would be located within the gardens of proposed dwellings with canopies extending over large parts of the garden areas of a number of plots would be likely to result in pressure from future residents to undertake tree works to improve their outlook and light availability. The Inspector considered that the provision of an appropriate buffer to the south would have had significant implications for the layout of the proposed development and the number of dwellings that could be provided and as such it could not be demonstrated that the development as proposed could be achieved. He concluded that it had not been demonstrated that the site could satisfactorily accommodate 72 dwellings without significant harm to the semi-natural ancient woodland, particularly along the southern boundary contrary to saved policies NE5 and G1 (12) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003.

Living Conditions The Inspector found that the living conditions of neighbours could be harmed, but that this could be addressed at a later stage in the planning process; however, it indicated that the proposal as it stood would not protect the amenities of residents and added weight to his overall conclusion.

Location of the Affordable Housing The Inspector found that the indicative layout did not result in a high level of integration of affordable housing units amongst the provision of market housing, being in only two discreet locations within the site. As such the proposal was deemed to fail to comply with saved policy H11 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003.

Car Parking The Inspector found that the parking provision across the site would not meet the Councils parking standards of 1.5 spaces for a 2 bed dwelling and 2 spaces for a three bed dwelling. He went on to say that the parking standard would not be achieved, for example, in respect of the affordable housing units and it would not be reasonable to expect a property with an 'over-supply' of parking to meet the needs of a property with an 'under-supply'. As such the parking standards would not be met and the development would fail to comply with saved policy G1 (1) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003.

Play Space Provision The Inspector noted a conflict between the area identified for a Local Equipped Area of Play to the east of the site and the location of an attenuation tank that may be required. On that basis, the Inspector concluded that the site could not satisfactorily accommodate the required play space or that the requirements of saved policy R2 with regard to open space provision could be met.

Protection of Wildlife The Inspector shared the Council's concern that without the benefit of the additional survey work the impact of the development on various species could not be property judged. However the Inspector noted that had he been minded to allow the appeal, conditions could have been imposed to ensure the additional survey work in relation to dormice and slow works (and other species if appropriate) could be undertaken in accordance with the recommendation in the Bat Survey Report and Reptile Survey Report. As such the Inspector concluded that appropriate protection could be afforded to wildlife and that, subject to any required mitigation, the development would not cause significant ham to dormice, slow works, badgers and birds.

Access to the Site The Inspector was satisfied that the access to the site was satisfactory.

Housing Need The Inspector attached substantial weight to the unmet housing need in the borough.

Overall conclusion The Inspector concluded that the principles of the NPPF, the need to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants; the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment and the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes had not been satisfactorily been embodied into the outline application. Whilst the Inspector considered whether the issues identified could be satisfactorily addressed at a later stage in the planning process, however, the shortfalls in the proposal were of such significance that the Inspector did not consider they could have satisfactorily been overcome without substantial changes to the submitted plans. The Inspectors overall conclusion was that the adverse impacts of the indicative scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF policies taken as a whole. The Inspector concluded that it had not been demonstrated that the site could accommodate the level of development proposed without material harm to matters of acknowledged importance. Amendments to the dismissed 2013 scheme

a full application is now proposed rather than an outline application

a reduction in the number of units proposed by 14

a buffer zone has been provided along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site

although the affordable units are still located in just two areas within the site, they are not located in isolated locations

sufficient parking provision is now proposed and in many circumstances provides additional provision over and above the Councils Vehicle Parking Standards together

with visitor parking

a Local Equipped Area of Play is proposed in the south-east corner of the site and does not conflict with the SUDs proposed

additional ecological surveys have been provided Principle of development The Inspector, in his dismissal of the 13/P/01983 scheme determined that the principle of the development was acceptable. Furthermore no in principle objection was raised to the 14/P/02326 scheme. This scheme seeks permission on the same application site as proposed under the 13/P/01983 scheme. This site is situated on land designated as Countryside Beyond the Green Belt (CBGB). Local plan policy RE4, relating to land designated as CBGB, does not conform with the NPPF and therefore carries very little weight in the determination of this planning application. Policy RE4 is a restrictive restraint policy, seeking to emulate Green Belt policy, but on land which, under the NPPF, does not have that national level of protection. Attention is therefore turned to the NPPF. The NPPF states that a presumption in favour of sustainable development should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. For decision-taking this means:

where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or

specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted The NPPF states that in assessing applications, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole. The need and demand for housing in the area The Council accepts that there is an identified, acknowledged need for housing in the borough that is not currently being met. Given the need for housing and affordable housing in the borough, there are considerable benefits in the provision of all types of housing and as such substantial weight is afforded to this benefit of the scheme in line with the weight afforded by the Inspector to the previously dismissed scheme. However, the need for housing needs to be weighed against the adverse impacts of the development when assessed against the NPPF policies and any other material considerations. If the benefits of the development outweigh any adverse impacts, then in view of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, permission should be granted. This is explored below. Loss of employment land The proposal would result in the loss of a B8 employment use currently in operation to the

rear of Warren Farm. This however is a personal permission, and was restricted due to the possible impact an open B8 use could have on neighbour amenity. Given the proximity to residential properties, the site is unsuitably located for an open B8 use. No objection was raised to this element of the proposal under the dismissed 2013 scheme or the 14/P/02326 scheme and as such no objection is raised here. Sustainable location? Whilst it is noted that numerous objections to the proposed development cite the unsustainable location of the site due to the lack of local facilities, its isolated location, and the reliance needed on private vehicles; however, it is considered by officers that the site is not in a remote location and a full range of facilities and services are available within a mile from the application site in Ash and Tongham. Whilst reliance on private vehicles is not preferable, in rural areas such as this, such reliance is not uncommon and as such no objection was raised by officers in the refusal of the 2013 application. This view was also shared by the Inspector in his decision on the 13/P/01983 appeal, where he raised no concern regarding the sustainability of the site, and no objection was raised to this in the assessment to the 14/P/02326 scheme. As such, no objection is raised here to this scheme which proposes a reduction in the number of units proposed and where sufficient parking provision is proposed to allow the future occupants of the site to access the facilities within Ash and Tongham. Impact on the character and appearance of the area One of the core planning principles listed in the NPPF is that planning should, “take account of the different role and character of different areas, promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it”. Therefore, whilst the principle of development is acceptable, the impact on the character of the area must also be acceptable. In terms of landscape character, the development would extend the existing built up part of the village south, introducing residential development into an area of land that is largely undeveloped. The development would result in the loss of green fields which would diminish the rural character of the site and result in a substantial extension to Ash Green, bearing in mind the small size of the existing settlement. However, due to the dense woodland belt to the south and east of the application site, the development would have little impact on the transition from built form to rural as the site is not visible from views from the south or east, thereby limiting the visual impact of the development. Further to the south of the application site beyond the tree belt is land designated as AGLV, turning into AONB further to the south closer to the Hogs Back. There are public views towards the site from the A31 Hogs Back and White Lane as it comes off the A31. However, the application site cannot however actually be seen from these areas due to the substantial tree belt to the south of the application site. The AONB officer has commented that, as long as this tree belt exists it would be highly unlikely any of the development would be noticeable from these two viewpoints, including in winter, because of its density and depth. Even if this were not the case, what could be seen through the tree belt would be viewed in context with existing built form beyond to the north. However, as the tree belt would continue to be protected by the existing tree preservation order, the proposal would be sufficiently screened and would have no adverse effect on views from the AONB or AGLV. As such, the development would not result in an visual intrusion of residential development into the countryside.

Shorter distance views across the existing fields from houses on White Lane and Hazel Road would be compromised to some extent, however, there is no right to a private view. Due to the set back of the first house from the road and the limited visibility into the site from White Lane, together with the orientation of the proposed site layout, the site would not be highly visible from any public vantage point. Overall, the development would have limited impact on the appearance of the area both in long and short distance views, and would therefore not result in any unacceptable visual harm. In terms of the scale and character, the surrounding area is mainly characterised by bungalows and one and a half storey detached dwellings of varying design. The proposal is for two storey houses, with a small number of two and a half storeys and a flatted development. There are examples of two storey development in the area and the proposal would provide for a mix of house types, encouraged by the NPPF, without harm to the wider area due to the limited visibility. With the use of high quality materials and landscaping, which will be secured by condition it is considered that the proposal will result in an attractive development. This application proposes a density of 17.6 dwellings per hectare (dph). This compares to White Lane and Hazel Road at 11dph and Pilgrims View and Old Cross Tree Way at 16dph. The proposed development clearly seeks a higher density of development than the surrounding development but the increase in density proposed is not significantly higher than the surrounding areas and would make for an efficient use of land in a way that would not result in any unacceptable visual harm. In keeping with the character of the area, the proposed development would have a variety of housing types and are considered to be appropriate to the setting of the area. The materials proposed would be from a limited palette of clay bricks, render, clay tile hanging and slate roof tiles, with standard sized windows and doors in order to be consistent with the architectural vernacular. The layout plan identifies an area of amenity space along the south-east boundary of the site as well as along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. A Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) is proposed in the south-east corner of the site. A sufficient buffer zone is proposed to the neighbouring dwellings. The LEAP and the remaining amenity areas would be subject to natural surveillance from the adjacent dwellinghouses, The layout of the development with an access road from the north-west of the site to the south-east corner would enable a shorter walking distance for those in the north-west corner of the site to access the LEAP. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy R2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 in this regard. The impact of the proposed development would therefore not result in any adverse impact on the character of the area and would therefore comply with saved policy G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012 in this regard. Impact on neighbour amenity The neighbouring properties which border the application site to the north and west along Hazel Road and White Lane respectively have long rear gardens. Due to the combination of the proposed layout of dwellings which back onto the western and northern boundaries of

the site, the existing and proposed landscaping along these boundaries, the garden lengths of the proposed dwellings and the separation distances to neighbouring properties of between approximately 42 and 70m (with the exception of plot 1 whereby a side elevation would be with approximately 30m of Hazelhurst) no overbearing or overshadowing impact or unreasonable loss of privacy to neighbouring residents would occur. Following concerns raised by the Inspector to the 2013 scheme, plot 1 has been re-orientated to face north / south at a 90 degree angle to the dwellings which front onto White Lane and as previously stated a separation distance of approximately 30m would be retained. Within the site, there is good spacing between the properties and a number of the dwellings are set back within their respective plots resulting in front gardens of varying depths fronting onto the access road creating an open and verdant feel which would be appropriate in this semi-rural location. Each of the units also benefits from their own rear garden, with the exception of the flatted development towards the south-west corner of the site. Due to the requirement of 15m buffer zones from the semi-ancient woodland along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site and the garden depths along the northern boundary of the site, it is not anticipated that there will be pressure from residents to carry out arboriculture works to the trees due to overshadowing which would also reduce the current level of screening of the development The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012 in this regard. Parking considerations In his decision to dismiss the 2013 scheme, the Inspector raised concerns regarding the level of parking proposed and its allocation between the proposed units in a location where the occupants would be likely to rely on the use of private cars. The proposed development would provide for a minimum of two parking spaces for each two or more bedroomed unit, with greater provision for the larger units in some cases and one parking space for each of the 4 one bedroom units within the flatted development. An additional 17 visitor spaces are proposed on site and are located across the site, with a number of bays along the buffer zones towards the northern, southern and eastern boundaries, with additional spaces close to the LEAP. The level and allocation of the parking spaces is considered to be acceptable and would meet the Council's standards. To ensure that no informal parking is created on the buffer zones of the semi-ancient woodland, a raised kerb would be constructed. No objection has been raised by the County Highway Authority in this regard. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policies G1 (1) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Highway considerations A single vehicle access is proposed to the development from White Lane and would require the demolition of the existing dwelling, Surrey House. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF 2012 states that all developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment and that plans and decisions should take account of a number of factors, including ensuring that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

The proposed vehicle access would be in the same location as proposed in the dismissed 2013 application where no objection was raised by the County Highway Authority. In accordance with paragraph 32 of the NPPF the applicant submitted an amended Transport Statement which concluded that the proposed development would not have a material impact on the operational capacity of White Lane and would result in an increase in two-way traffic movements of 14% and is therefore is considered to be negligible. The County Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed development which would provide sufficient visibility splays from the access onto White Lane. The new position of the access in comparison to the 2014 refused scheme would also create sufficient levels of forward visibility so that vehicles travelling northbound on White Lane have the required stopping distance for vehicles waiting to turn right into the development. The County Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposed development would not lead to a significant increase in levels of traffic along White Lane, nor would it result in a material impact on any particular junction in terms of capacity. The above highway improvements would seek to mitigate against any such impact that would arise from the slight increase in traffic along White Lane. The improvements to the Local Bus Stops hope to increase patronage of buses and therefore reduce vehicular trips. The level of parking to be provided is in accordance with Guildford Borough Council’s parking standards The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policies G1 (2) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Impact on ecology An ecological appraisal and bat survey was submitted with the application and concludes that provided the recommendations outlined in the report are adhered to that the residential development would result in a low ecological impact with opportunities for ecological enhancement. Surrey Wildlife Trust has assessed the submitted report and confirms that the report provides much useful information for the Local Authority to be able to assess the potential status of protected and important species on the proposed development site and the possible effect of a development on them. Subject to the recommendations and enhancements within the submitted report, the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact on the ecology of the site. As such a condition is recommended to secure the necessary recommendations are adhered to and the suggested recommendations are undertaken. Impact on trees The importance of ancient woodland is identified in the NPPF which notes at paragraph 118 that planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss. Due to the layout of the proposed development, a buffer zone would be provided between the semi-ancient woodland located to the eastern and southern boundaries of the site and as such would not be affected by the development. An existing mature tree towards the south-eastern part of the site would be retained. The proposed landscaping scheme would introduce further planting to the site and would be

secured by condition. The proposed development would therefore comply with saved policy G1 (12) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area The proposed development may adversely impact the TBHSPA and mitigation is therefore required, in accordance with the Councils adopted TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2016. One of the key approaches to ensure avoidance is the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green space (SANG) to attract people away from the SPA and hence reduce pressure on it. The strategy contains arrangements whereby developers may contribute towards the cost of necessary works to improve existing areas of open space in the Borough and facilitates the determination of planning applications by ensuring that there will be no adverse impact on the SPA and therefore compliance with the Habitats Regulations. Lakeside Park, Ash Vale was designated as a SANG for the western side of the borough. However the useable SANG at Lakeside has been gradually allocated to development in that area since March 2006 (when the original Interim TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy which preceded the existing strategy was adopted) and this SANG is now fully allocated and has reached capacity. The effect of this is that any further developments of 10 or more dwellings (the Strategic Delivery Framework requires that developments of 10 or more dwellings must be within 5km of SANG, whereas developments of less than 10 can be allocated to any SANG in the borough) cannot currently provide avoidance through the Council’s strategy. Until recently the approach has been to refuse planning applications in this area unless they can provide their own avoidance. The reason being that development would have an adverse effect on the nature conservation value of the SPA (NE1), where there are no proposed or available steps to secure protection (NE4) and because if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused (NPPF). However, two appeal decisions (Poyle Road, Tongham APP/Y3615/A/13/2200458, and Foreman Road, Ash APP/Y3615/A/13/2198634) were allowed subject to the imposition of a grampian style condition to prevent development coming forward until such a time that the necessary mitigation against any harm to the TBHSPA was in place. As such, whilst no mitigation against the harm caused to the integrity of the TBHSPA brought about by the proposed increase in residential units within 400m-5km of the SPA is currently proposed by this application, a grampian style condition is recommended to secure the necessary mitigation. The applicant is willing to enter into a S.106 agreement to secure a SANG contribution of £264,372.36 and an Access Management contribution of £50,622.86 to avoid any adverse impact (based on net increase of 57 dwellings) in accordance with the Council’s adopted TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (February 2010). S106 requirements On-site provision cannot be made for formal playing fields; furthermore no off-site provision can be secured due to regulation 123 of the CIL regulations which prevent the pooling of 5 or more contributions.

In addition to the SPA requirement The following contributions would be sought:

Highways A contribution of £7,000 towards improvements to Local Bus Stops following consultation with the County Highway Authority.

Education Following consultation with Surrey Education Officer the following contributions are required in order to mitigate against the increased demand for school places resulting from the proposed development:

Early years - £38,364 to expand Sunflower Nursery School at Harpers Scout Hut, Ash and the Jack and Jill Nursery, Winchester Road, Ash

Primary education - £238,593 to provide additional classrooms at Ash Grange Primary School to facilitate expansion by 1 form of entry

Secondary education - £275,731 to provide additional general classrooms at St Peter's RC Secondary School to enable the school to increase its capacity and provide places for more children

Legal Agreement Requirements The three tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of The Community Infrastructure Levy

Regulations 2010 require S.106 agreements to be:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As the application proposes the provision of 57 additional units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required as part of any planning approval to secure a financial contribution to provide mitigation to the harm caused to the integrity of the TBHSPA, in line with the Guildford Borough Council TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2016 (February 2010). This strategy has been formally adopted by the Council. While Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations seeks to prevent the pooling of financial contribution from planning obligations this relates only to an obligation which “provides for the funding or provision of relevant infrastructure”. In this instance the contributions are required to improve existing SANGs and ensure they are maintained in perpetuity; the SANGS are existing infrastructure which is to be improved to ensure that they have suitable capacity to mitigate the impact of the residential development. Accordingly the contributions are not for the provision of infrastructure and therefore Regulation 123 does not prevent collecting these contributions or having regard to the obligation in decision making. The SAMM contribution does not relate to infrastructure and this also falls outside the scope of Regulation 123. In line with the Councils Avoidance Strategy, and the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations, a S106 agreement is required to ensure that the additional residential units proposed by this development will not have any likely significant effect on the TBHSPA. The level of financial contribution sought is in line with the specific tariffs set out in the adopted Avoidance Strategy which relate to the number of residential units and number of

bedrooms proposed. Due to the demonstrable lack of affordable housing to meet local need, a minimum of 35 percent affordable housing provision must be provided in accordance policy H11 of the saved local plan and the requirements of the Council's Planning Contributions SPD 2011. The proposed development is in an area where there is pressure on school places. The Planning Contributions SPD identifies that where new development creates additional need, or exacerbates an existing deficit in education provision, the developer may be required to contribute towards improving provision within the Borough. There is also provision in the NPPF to ensure that there will be sufficient infrastructure as an element of sustainable development. NPPF paragraph 72 states "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities". NPPF paragraph 176 states "where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements". The proposal is likely to result in demand for school places and as such financial contributions to early years, primary and secondary education would be necessary to mitigate against this impact brought about by the proposed development. Due to the increased pressure on the local bus services, a financial contribution to improve bus stops is also required. Sustainable design and construction The applicant has submitted a report to confirm that a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement of the proposed development would be provided using low or zero carbon technologies. Amended plans have been submitted since the submission of this report which may affect the percentage of renewable energy achieved as such a condition is recommended to ensure that further details are provided so that the necessary renewable energy target is reached. The proposed development would therefore comply with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Design and Construction 2011. Flooding and drainage considerations The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment stating that the site is within Flood Zone 1 at low risk of flooding from both tidal and fluvial sources. It goes on to say that:

The Ash Green Flood Relief Scheme which is currently under construction will protect the village from surface water runoff from agricultural land to the south and will reduce the flow within the watercourse on the eastern boundary of the site during storm events. Once constructed the surface water flood risk to the site from the adjacent watercourse is considered to be low.

A sustainable urban drainage system will be incorporated into the development and is in accordance with sustainable drainage policies and best practice with storage being located below ground level.

The detailed design of the levels and drainage solution will remove the surface water risk to the site and to adjacent to downstream land from the site. The detailed design of the surface water drainage outfall will ensure the environmental impact is minimised.

The collection and storage of large return period storms will reduce the downstream flood risk during such events.

Following consultation with the Council's drainage consultant, further detailed drainage information was submitted and has been assessed by both the Council's drainage consultant and the Lead Local Flood Authority and has been deemed acceptable. The proposed development is therefore considered acceptable in this regard and would comply with saved policy G1 (6) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the NPPF 2012. Conclusion. The proposed development would result in the provision of 58 residential dwellings, 35% of which would be affordable, and would assist in meeting the Council's five year housing supply. The development would also result in an economic benefit to the local area through the provision of jobs and the associated benefits that would be brought during the construction period and subsequently following the occupation of the dwelling. No material harmful impact on views into or out of the AONB or AGLV would occur and no material harm would occur to the character of the area or neighbouring amenity. The semi-ancient woodland would not be adversely affected by the proposed development. No highway safety concerns are raised and a contribution towards local bus stops would be secured. A detailed drainage strategy has been agreed with the Council's drainage consultant and the Lead Local Flood Authority and as such no concern is raised with regard to surface water flooding. Furthermore, suitable mitigation against the harm to the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area would be been secured by means of a legal agreement when the necessary SANG provision is made available. The proposed development is recommended for approval. RECOMMENDATION:

(i) Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure:

SANGS contribution of £264,372.36 and a SAMM contribution of £50,622.86 based on the adopted tariff to mitigate against the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

£7,000 towards improvements to Local Bus Stops

35% affordable housing Early years contribution of £38,364

Primary school contributions of £ 238,593

Secondary school contributions of £275,731 (ii) That upon completion of (i) above, the application be determined by the Director of Development. The preliminary view is that the application should be granted subject to conditions. the Application be:

Approve subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :-

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply 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. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: HP/5880/ 01 received 15/01/16, 4765_009_B received 04/07/15, HP/5880/02 C received 29/04/16, 5880 / 100 revision A, 5880 / 101 revision A, 5880 / 102 revision A, 5880 /103 revision A, 5880 /104 revision A, 5880 / 105 revision A, 5880 / 106 revision A, 5880 / 107 revision A, 5880 / 108 revision A, 5880 / 109 revision A, 5880 / 110 revision A, 5880 / 111 revision A, 5880 / 112 revision A, 5880 / 113 revision A, 5880 / 114 revision A, 5880 / 115 revision A, 5880 / 116 revision A, 5880 / 117 revision A, 5880 / 118 revision A, 5880 / 119 revision A, 5880 / 120 revision A, 5880 / 121 revision A, 5880 / 122 revision A, 5880 / 123 revision A, 5880 /124 revision A, 5880 / 125 revision A, 5880 / 126 revision A, 5880 / 127 revision A all received 18/03/16. HP / 5880 / 10 B, HP/5880 / 11 B, HP/5880/12B, HP /5800 /03 B, HP/ 5880 /04 B, HP/ 5880 / 05B all received 29/04/16, 2015-2414-DWG-214 revision B, 15-0155 1 of 2 and 2 of 2 and 2015-2414-DWG-209, Revision B received 15/01/16 and the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Bat Survey Report dated 08/01/16 by Peak Ecology Ltd and the Alan Baxter surface water drainage details dated June 2016 received 22/06/16. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.

3. No development shall take place until written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority that the Council has secured mitigation for the development through contributions towards the maintenance and improvement of a Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) as may be identified by the Council in consultation with Natural England. No dwelling shall be occupied before written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority that the necessary contributions have been received by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: This is required as a pre-commencement condition as the development is only acceptable if the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area can be mitigated.

4. Prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby approved a Road Safety Scheme comprising enhanced signing and anti-skid surfacing on the A31 off slip has been provided in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

5. Development shall not commence until a drainage strategy detailing any on

and/or off site drainage works, has been submitted to and approved by, the local planning authority in consultation with the sewerage undertaker. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall be accepted into the public system until the drainage works referred to in the strategy have been completed. Reason: To ensure that sufficient capacity is made available to cope with the new development; and in order to avoid sewage flooding and an adverse environmental impact on the community.

6. Prior to first occupation of any of the units hereby approved, advanced warning signs and anti-skid surfacing on both approaches of the White Lane junction with Poyle Road shall be provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved scheme shall be implemented. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

7. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the 40mph speed limit has been extended 100m southwards of its existing location, including the relocation of any signs or road markings, all to be in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that this is not successful due to unresolved objections the applicant shall submit an alternative scheme to the Local Planning Authority for its approval prior to first occupation of the development. Any alternative scheme shall comprise measures aimed at reducing vehicle speed and should be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwellings to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

8. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the proposed vehicular access to White Lane has been constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved plans, Drawing No. 2015-2414-DWG-209, Revision B, and thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction between 0.6m and 2.0m above ground level. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

9. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans, Drawing No. HP/5880/02, for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking /turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other road users.

10. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management

Plan, 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) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones (e) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway (f) on-site turning for construction vehicles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of the development. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other road users.

11. Notwithstanding the submitted Warren Farm and Surrey House Energy Strategy and Water Consumption Assessment Planning report, prior to the commencement of development, a “revised energy assessment” shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details of how energy efficiency is being addressed, including benchmark data and identifying the Target carbon Emissions Rate TER for the site / development and show the on-site measure(s) to be taken and feasible renewable energy equipment to produce a minimum of 10% of the total energy requirements of the new development by means of renewable energy sources above and beyond the current Building Regulations. The final total annual energy demand calculated should include energy use for all end uses known to be present or to be provided including:• Space heating and hot water• Gas and/or electric catering• Refrigeration/cooing• Fans, pumps and controls• Humidification• Lighting and office equipment• Centralised IT (server room) and communications equipment • Other miscellaneous electricity. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained as operational thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To optimise renewable energy and its conservation. This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the development takes into consideration a fabric first approach and provides an opportunity to incorporate low or zero technologies into the development rather than it being necessary to fit them retrospectively.

12. Prior to the first occupation of the site, the Local Equipped Area of Play and associated pedestrian accesses shall be provided in accordance with drawing number 4765 009B and made available to the general public. Reason: To ensure that the necessary LEAP is provided in a timely manner and in accordance with the approved plans.

13. Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted, including

works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall not take place other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays and between 0800 am and 13.30 pm Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National Holidays. Reason: To protect the neighbours from noise and disturbance outside the permitted hours during the construction period.

14. No development shall take place until details and samples of the proposed external facing and roofing materials including colour and finish have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples. Reason: This pre-commencement condition is considered necessary as it goes to the heart of the permission and is to ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory.

15. Prior to the first occupation of the site a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan together with full details, of both hard and soft landscape proposals, including a schedule of landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 10 years, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme (with the exception of planting, seeding and turfing) shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the 25th residential unit on the development hereby approved and retained. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of an appropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

16. In the event that piling works are necessary, a scheme for limited the noise shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and shall be in accordance with BS5228 (Parts 1 & 4) for noise control. The scheme shall specify the proposed piling method and the reason for its selection. This shall take into account the ground conditions of the proposed development site and the proximity of residential properties. Piling shall not comment until written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Please note: Silent piling is the preferred option and only in extreme cases will noisy methods, such as driven piles, be permitted. Reason: In the interest of neighbouring amenity.

16. All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out prior to the first occupation of the 25 unit on the site or as otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the local planning authority, shall be replaced in the next available planting sooner with others of similar size, species and number, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of an appropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of the

application site and wider locality.

17. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought on to the site for the purpose of the development, until a scheme showing the exact position of protective fencing to enclose all retained trees as shown on the submitted plans, beyond the outer edge of the overhang of their branches in accordance with British Standard 5837 (2005): Trees in Relation to Construction (or any later revised standard), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the protective fencing has been erected in accordance with the approved details. This fencing shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority. Reason: To enable the local planning authority to ensure the retention of trees on the site in the interests of visual amenity. This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that no damage occurs to the trees prior to the necessary tree protection being erected.

18. The development shall take place in accordance with the recommendations and ecological enhancements detailed in section 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Bat Survey Report dated 8th January by Peak Ecology Ltd. Reason: In order to protect the existing ecology on the site and to provide habitat enhancement.

19. The development shall take place in full accordance with the drainage works as detailed in the Alan Baxter surface water detailed drainage details dated June 2016 received 05/06/16. The development shall not be brought into first occupation until the approved surface water drainage has been constructed in accordance with the above scheme. Reason: To ensure that the development can be adequately drained.

20. Before the commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will cater for system failure or exceedance events, both on and offsite, must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposal has fully considered system failure. This pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the proposed drainage system is appropriate and can be constructed at the correct stage of development to prevent the need to retrofit alternative solutions.

21. Before the commencement of the construction of the development hereby approved, details of how the Sustainable Drainage System will be protected and maintained during the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in strict accordance with those approved details. Reason: To ensure that the construction works do not compromise the functioning of the agreed Sustainable Drainage System. This

pre-commencement condition is required as the provision of SuDS on the site goes to the heart of the planning permission.

22. Prior to construction of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed ownership and maintenance regimes for each of the SuDS elements must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the drainage system is maintained throughout its life time to an acceptable standard.

23. Prior to first occupation of the site, a verification report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as per the agreed scheme. Reason: To ensure the Sustainable Drainage System has been constructed as agreed.

Informatives: 1. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any

works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-droppe d-kerbs.

2. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert or water course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278 agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an application will need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 months in advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the works proposed and the classification of the road. Please see http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management-permit-scheme. The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Please see www.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency-planning-and-community-safety/floodingadvice.

3. The scheme to extend the 40mph speed limit shall first require the alteration of the existing Traffic Regulation Order prior to first occupation of the development. The alteration of the Traffic Regulation Order is a separate statutory procedure which must be processed at the applicants’ expense prior to any alterations being made.

4. With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer,

the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. Where the developer proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from Thames Water Developer Services will be required. They can be contacted on 0800 009 3921.

5. Adequate control precautions should be taken in order to control noise emissions from any fixed plant, including generator, on site during demolition / construction activities. This may require the use of quiet plant or ensuring that the plant is sited appropriately and / or adequately attenuated. Exhaust emissions from such plant should also be vented to atmosphere such that fumes do not ingress into any property.

6. Due to the proximity of residential accommodation there should be no burning of waste material on site.

7. During demolition or construction phases, adequate control precautions should be taken in order to control the spread of dust on the site, so as to prevent a nuisance to residents in the locality. This may involve the use of dust screens and / or importing a water supply to wet areas of the site to inhibit dust.

8. The site should be assessed for any asbestos material prior to demolition or conversion. Any work with asbestos must be carried out in accordance with the Asbestos at Work Regulations and approved code of practice.