SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Report of the Head of Planning, Development and Homes to be considered at the meeting held on

13 December 2010

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 Services

Banks, building societies, estate and 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 appropriate 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 Institutions

Use for a provision of secure residential 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.

D1. Non-residential Institutions

Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, 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 FORMER DERA SITE CHOBHAM LANE, LONGCROSS, CHERTSEY, KT16 0EE

2005/0548 01 1

PAR LAND TO THE REAR OF AUTUMN LODGE & MARAVAL, SPRINGFIELD ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 1AB

2010/0375 02 20

BAG PINEWOOD, 93 COLLEGE RIDE, BAGSHOT, GU19 5EP

2010/0606 03 27

BAG NOTCUTTS GARDEN CENTRE, 150-152 LONDON ROAD, BAGSHOT, GU19 5DG

2010/0629 04 40

CHO WENTWORTH PLACE, CHESTNUT LANE, CHOBHAM, WOKING, GU24 8TN

2010/0684 05 46

STM 11 FRIMLEY ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3EN 2010/0852 06 52

1

01 2005/0548 Reg Date 24/05/2005 Chobham LOCATION: FORMER DERA SITE CHOBHAM LANE, LONGCROSS,

CHERTSEY, KT16 0EE PROPOSAL: Outline application for development comprising up to 113,434

sq.m of built floorspace (in total) including: business premises (Class B1 use); with supporting retail and cafe/restaurant facilities (Class A1 and A3 use), childcare facilities (Class D1 use), leisure facilities (Class D2 use) and decked vehicle parking. Development also to include demolition of buildings, removal of hardstanding; creation of ecological habitat areas; creation of general amenity areas; creation of landscaped areas; new and improved site access for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; new and improved links between the site and existing public highways network; vehicle parking (up to 3,079 spaces); cycle parking; drainage works including a pumping station for foul drainage and storage ponds for surface water drainage; bin stores; electricity substation; and associated engineering operations. All such development shall accord with the application plans and development parameters contained herein.

TYPE: Outline APPLICANT: CGNU Ltd & Crest Nicholson Devis Ltd OFFICER: Michelle Fielder

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application relates to the comprehensive redevelopment of the DERA site for business and ancillary uses. The site is 43ha of which only 8ha lies within this authority and the remainder within the administrative boundary of Runnymede Borough.

1.2 The parcel that falls within Surrey Heath is to be set out as an ecological buffer. No new built form is proposed within this area. This application has been submitted to the Planning Applications Committee on four previous occasions. A resolution to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a s106 agreement was agreed at the committee meetings of 30 June 2008 and 5 May 2009.

1.3 The agreement has not been completed and therefore planning permission has not been issued. The purpose of this report is three fold, firstly to seek an extension of time to allow for the completion of the s106 agreement. Secondly, to explain why it has not proved possible to reach agreement on the detail of the s106 as it relates to the traffic calming and mitigation measures sought under the terms of the original resolution. Consequently this report also serves to advise Members of the revised ‘package’ of traffic calming and mitigation measures now being put forward by the applicant. Thirdly, to set out a schedule of revised draft planning conditions.

1.4 It should however be noted that the detail of the application remains as before. The only material difference between the details of the application as considered acceptable by the Planning Applications Committee on 30 June 2008 and 5 May 2009 is the terms of the mitigation measures to be secured by the s106 and the revised draft planning conditions. With this in mind, the matters to be considered by this report are limited to whether:

1. It is appropriate to extend the time period for the completion of the s106 agreement;

2

2. the mitigation package offered by the applicant is considered sufficient to mitigate the proposals impact on the highway network of the Borough; and,

3. Whether the revised draft planning conditions proposed, in combination with point 2 above, will mitigate the impact of the application on the Borough.

1.5 This report concludes that the application and mitigation proposed is acceptable.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

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

1. The submission of an ecological buffer management plan on that part of the site known as the Ecological Buffer Zone. The implementation of the Ecological Management Plan prior to the occupation of any B1 Offices on the wider site. For the avoidance of doubt the Ecological Management Plan will ensure provision for the future upkeep and maintenance of the Ecological Buffer Zone which may be through the appointment of an ecological Management Agent approved by Surrey Heath Borough Council.

The retention of existing buildings 63, 109 and 110 within the Ecological Buffer Zone to a standard suitable for Black Redstart birds to inhabit for such time as they inhabit the Site or until such a time that a suitable alternative habitat for the birds has been provided within the Site. The retention of building 64 and the relocation of building 10.

2. Surrey Heath Borough Council to be consulted on the nature of the brief and scope of all Traffic Studies affecting Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Villages and thereafter for the comments and suggestions of Surrey Heath Borough Council to be duly considered when drawing up the methodology for the conduct of any Traffic Studies relating to Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Villages.

The Owner to agree with the County Council the methodology for the First Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study prior to Occupation of more than 77,320 square metres gross floor area of B1 offices.

The First Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study to be implemented prior to the occupation of more than 77,320 square metres gross floor area of B1 offices and to carry out the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the Second Chobham Village Traffic Study upon full Occupation of the Development or three years after completion of the First Windlesham Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study whichever is the earlier.

To carry out, the Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works within 18 months following completion of the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and to carry out the Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works within 18 months following completion of the Second Chobham Village Traffic Study.

Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works to be defined within the agreement as those traffic calming works up to a maximum cost of £55,000 (of which up to £5,000 is to be used for design fees) the design and implementation and the cost of the First Chobham Traffic Study and the Second Chobham Traffic Study) as may be determined as required by the Second Chobham Traffic Study to discourage

3

development traffic from using Chobham Village to access the Site. The maximum cost of these works shall be limited to £55,000 and index linked to the date of the consent.

Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works to be defined within the agreement as traffic calming works as may be determined as required by the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study [up to a maximum of £110,000 (of which £10,000 is to be used for design fees)] (to include the design and implementation and the cost of the First Windlesham Village Traffic Study and the Second Windlesham Village Traffic Study) to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham Village to access the Site. The maximum cost of these works shall be limited to £110,000 and index linked to the date of the consent.

The two traffic calming works contributions referred to may be pooled to allow for flexibility of spend as may be necessary to deliver the relevant works. However in the event that the contribution towards the Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works and/or the Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works are not spent in full then any balance remaining shall be spent on any traffic calming measures within villages affected by the Development falling within the administrative boundaries of Surrey Heath Borough

Subject to the imposition of the following planning conditions:

1. Approval of the details of the siting, design and external appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced as follows:

(a) The application for approval of the first reserved matters application shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission

(b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before

the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of three years from the date of approval of the first reserved matters application to be approved, which ever is latest.

(c) The application for approval of the last reserved matters

application shall be made to the planning authority before the expiration of seven years from the date of this permission.

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

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the

development parameters, description of development and planning application plans as contained within the revised outline planning application submitted in November 2007. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the revised planning application

4

3. An Ecological Management Plan, pertaining to the ecological habitat area, as

shown on drawing No.13091 TP02 Rev A, shall be prepared and agreed with the first reserved matters application and prior to the commencement of any demolition works on the site. This Plan shall set out the management measures for the ecological habitat areas on the site and will include details of:

(i) Protection of flora, fauna and protected wildlife species, retention, protection and long term maintenance of buildings 63, 64, 109 and 110 as shown on drawing No. 13091 TP-02 Rev A, proposed habitat creation and management measures including for the demolition, construction and operational phases of the development including business unit welcome pack. All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with agreed timescale and details and thereafter maintained in perpetuity. There shall be no variations to the agreed timescale or details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority.

(ii) The continued maintenance and upkeep of the

existing security fence around that part of the perimeter of the site within Surrey Heath Borough Council’s administrative area; the location and specification of any additional security fencing required around the perimeter of the site and internal security fencing between the development envelope and the ecological buffer zone; details of the management regime, to remain in place in perpetuity and be reviewed from time to time as necessary, for the maintenance of the perimeter security fence; and, the provision of protective fencing as shown on Drawing No.13091 TP02 Rev A.

(iii) Arrangements for access in to the Ecological Buffer

Zone for maintenance, management and emergencies, including any works necessary to prevent public vehicular or pedestrian access into or out of the site via the western boundary of the site (with the exception of emergency access via Burma Road).

All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with agreed timescales and details and thereafter maintained in perpetuity. There shall be no variations to the agreed timescale or details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development which protects the Green Belt; enhances the ecological value of the site to provide long term protection for flora, fauna and wildlife; prevents public vehicular and pedestrian access into and out of the western boundary of the site; and, protects local residents and protected wildlife particularly Annexe 1 birds from noise and vibrations from demolition, construction and operational phases connected with the proposed development in compliance with policies RE2 and RE13 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), Policies SP5 and NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 and the advice of

5

Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 'Green Belts', PPS9 'Biodiversity & Geological Conservation', Conditions C6, C7, C8 and C9 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area, Condition C18 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation.

4. No development shall commence until a Method of Construction Statement, to

include details of:

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

(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials

(c) storage of plant and materials

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

(e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period. Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policies M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved)

5. Prior to the commencement of any development, including any demolition works,

an emergency vehicular access shall be provided for the use of emergency vehicles only. This access shall be taken from Burma Road and shall be secured in a manner to ensure that it shall only be used by emergency vehicles. Reason: In order to ensure the development provides sustainable travel facilities and in the interests of highway safety, to protect Chobham Common SAC and SPA and to comply with the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation and the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area.

6. No development shall commence within a reserved matters parcel (where a

reserved matters approval relating such parcels includes off-site highway works) until a programme and detailed design of off-site highways works have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. These off-site highway works are to be carried out in accordance with the agreed detailed design (unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and linked programme between the completion of the off-site highway works and the occupation of buildings. These works are to comprise improvements to Chobham Lane/Longcross Road/Chertsey Road and Burma Road roundabout; Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and to comply with Policy M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

6

7. No part of the development shall be occupied unless and until a programme for

the works to the M3 junction 3 as shown on Figure 22 received by the Highways Agency on 26th November 2007 (for such scheme of works to the same general effect which has first been approved in writing by the Secretary of State for Transport in consultation with the Local Highway Authority and thereafter approved by the Local Planning Authority) has been agreed and such works as necessary relative to the any phasing of the development have been completed and opened to traffic. Reason: To contribute to the mitigation of the impacts of the development on the Strategic Road Network and its users and to comply with Policy M5 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

8. Before any operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or from

the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided as must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used wherever the said operations are carried out. Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other highway users; to reduce dust emissions to protect Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation and to comply with Policy M5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), and the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation.

9. There shall be no access through the western boundary of the development area

except for emergency access. Reason: In order to prevent unfettered access for emergency service vehicles and to comply with Policy M5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

10. 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 for each reserved matters parcel must not commence until Conditions 1 to 4 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

7

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 archaeological 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, CLR11'.

2. Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring each reserved matters parcel 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 of each reserved matters parcel 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.

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.

8

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 of each reserved matters parcel over a period of 2 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, CLR11'.

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 to comply with Planning Policy Statement 23: 'Planning and Pollution Control' and Annex 2 of Planning Policy Statement 23: 'Development Affected by Contamination'.

11. Except where otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all trees

shown to be retained on the drawing attached as Figure 12.0/4 'Trees to be Retained During Initial Site Clearance' dated 20.11.06 and paragraphs 12.59 and 12.60 of the amended Environmental Statement - main text received in January 2007 shall be retained. Reason: To protect the trees to be retained and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy G24 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

9

12. No trees to be retained in accordance with Condition 18 above shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed and no works to the trees shall be carried out without the written approval of the Local Planning Authority until the expiration of five years from the date of completion of the development. All trees to be retained shall be adequately protected from damage during site clearance works in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing, with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the trees to be retained and enhance the appearance of the surrounding area and to comply with Policy G24 of Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

13. No work relating to the development hereby approved, including the operation of

any plant and machinery, site clearance and demolition, shall be carried out on the site except between the hours of 7am and 7pm on weekdays, 7am and 4pm on Saturdays and none shall take place on Sundays or 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 unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of adjoining residential occupants.

14. A Construction and Environmental Management Plan shall be prepared and

agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. All construction works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include:

The methods to be used to control the emission of dust, noise and vibration and air quality from the construction works;

A scheme for dust deposition monitoring (to comply with Conditions C12, C13, C14, C19, C20 and C21 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation);

A soil management strategy to conserve the soil for beneficial re-use within the site;

Measures (including wheel wash facilities) to control the deposit of mud and similar debris on the adjoining public highway;

Areas for storing of fuels, oils and chemicals; Site fencing and security measures; A procedure for submission and resolution of

complaints; Crime and disorder issues; Details of temporary car parking, site operative

accommodation and location of compounds; Measures to prevent adverse disturbance to wildlife

and habitats during the demolition and construction phases;

10

Burning of refuse and materials on site will be prohibited;

Minimisation of use of resources/materials; Re-use of materials; Recycling of materials; Treatment with energy recovery; Disposal to landfill; Noise and vibration implications; Road traffic routes for demolition and construction

vehicles and road traffic noise; Minimisation of noise emissions from the site; Compliance with noise control procedures in

BS5228; Monitor, Control and report processes; Independent validation procedures and controls (to

comply with Conditions C15 and C16 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation.

Reason: To ensure that no noise nuisance or disturbance is caused to the occupiers of neighbouring properties; to protect the Chobham Common SSSI, Thames Basin Special Protection Area and the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation; to provide sustainable development and to accord with Policies G9, RE13 and M5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

15. Before any demolition works commence on the site, a scheme shall be submitted

to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority which specifies the provisions to be made for the control of noise and vibrations emanating from the site. All noise-related works and operations shall then be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To protect local residents and protected wildlife particularly Annexe 1 birds from noise and vibrations from demolition, construction and operational phases connected with the proposed development and to comply with the advice of Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 'Planning and Noise' and Conditions C8 and C9 of the Appropriate Assessment Report for the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area.

16. Before demolition commences on each reserved matters parcel, a management

plan for the maintenance and protection of habitats for Black Redstarts, Deptford Pinks, badgers, bats, slow worms, adders, grass snakes, common lizards and any other protected species or plants during demolition, construction and operational phases will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All agreed works shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details. There shall be no variations to the agreed details unless prior written agreement is obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To promote the long term viability of the protected species on site in accordance with the advice of Planning Policy Statement 9 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'.

11

17. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following

approved plans and documents

Main Application Site Plans

TP-01 Rev. A. Application Boundaries Main Site Area TP-01 Rev. B. Application Boundaries Off-Site Highway Works TP-02 Rev. A. Development Envelope TP-03 Rev. A. Building Envelope TP-04 Rev. A. Parking Envelope TP-05A Rev. A. Environmental Features TP-06 Rev. A. Demolition Plan TP-07 Rev. A. Access and Movement TP-08 Rev. A. Existing Buildings and Ground Levels TP-09 Public Realm Envelope

Off-Site Highway Works Plans

905-Fig9 Main Site Access 905-Fig5-19 Proposed Chertsey Road/Chobham Lane/Longcross Road Improvements 905-Fig5-20 New Signal Junction at Trumps Green Road/Wellington Avenue 905-Fig5-21 M3 Junction 3 Improvements [also sent to the Highways Agency but referred to as 'figure 22'] Documents

Environmental Statement: Main Text, Figures and Appendices

(Volumes 1 and 2) Transport Assessment Framework Document Information Towards an Appropriate Assessment

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” (2010).

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

The proposal would not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the rural character of the area. The proposal would not adversley impact upon the integrity of the Thames Basin Heath SPA or the Thursely, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation or SSSI. The proposal would not prejudice highway safety.

12

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

Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy RE2: Development within the Green Belt. South East Plan 2009, Policies SP5 and NRM6.

PPG 2, PPS4, PPS9 PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control.

Recommendation 2 In the event that a Legal Agreement as set out in the paragraph above is not completed within 6 months of the date of this Committee meeting the application shall be refused by the Head of Planning, Development and Homes on the grounds that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that off site highway works and an ecological buffer can be satisfactorily provided to mitigate the scheme. In such circumstances the precise wording of the reason for refusal shall be drawn up by the Head of Planning, Development and Homes after consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ward councillors.

3.0 BACKGROUND

3.1 This application relates to the DERA site which falls within the administrative boundaries of both Surrey Heath Borough Council and Runnymede Borough Council. The application site extends to 43ha of which 8ha lies within this Council’s administrative area.

3.2 The wider application site is designated as a Major Developed Site in the Metropolitan Green Belt and adjoins Chobham Common to the West, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), part of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (SPA) and part of the Thursley, Ash, Pirbright and Chobham Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The M3 motorway lies to the South.

3.3 The wider proposal seeks outline planning permission for the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide up to 113,434m2 of built floorspace in various use classes, parking and ancillary works following the demolition of the existing buildings and the removal of hardstanding. The proposal also seeks to create ecological habitat areas together with landscape and general amenity areas. Of this development proposal 8ha of the site (the Surrey Heath part of the site) lies outside of the development envelope and no new build is proposed within it. As advised by previous committee reports the entire 8ha area within this Council’s boundary is to be used to form the protected ecological buffer.

3.4 The application has been before the Planning Applications Committee on a number of occasions previously as set out below:

6 May 2008

The application was presented to the Planning Applications Committee with a recommendation for approval subject to planning conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure the provision and maintenance of an ecological buffer zone on the parcel of land within the administrative boundary of this Council. The application was deferred from this meeting to allow for the County Highway Authority to be present.

2 June 2008

The application was represented under the same terms as before (subject to a few minor corrections). The matter was deferred to allow for the further consideration on the wider proposals impact on several villages within Surrey Heath.

13

30 June 2008

The matter was again presented to Committee with an Officer Recommendation for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement to secure:

d) The provision and maintenance of an ecological buffer zone on the site (within Surrey Heath) to ensure appropriate habitat for the species of interest (requires an Ecological Buffer Zone Management Plan to be agreed in writing prior to the occupation of the first new B1 offices in the wider site that lies within the boundary of Runnymede Borough Council. Developer to upkeep and maintain a buffer zone which may be sub let to an approved Ecological Managing Agent);

e) Implementation of a traffic study within the Windlesham Village area (the brief and scope of the study to be agreed with the Local Authority and County Highway Authority) and the design, consultation and implementation of further traffic calming within the village that might be derived from the traffic study to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham village to access the development. The maximum expenditure on works limited to £100,000 and index linked to the date of consent.

f) Implementation of a traffic study within Chobham Village (the brief and scope of the study to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and County Highway Authority) and the design, consultation and implementation of further traffic calming within the village that might be derived from the traffic study to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham village to access the development. The maximum expenditure on works limited to £50,000 and index linked to the date of consent.

g) Currently within the draft Section 106 Agreement with Runnymede Borough Council is the agreement to contribute a sum up to £100,000 towards the cost of closing Staple Hill Road if such a closure is proposed by the Highway Authority. In the event that this closure is not required or undertaken, the Developer will contribute this sum or the balance remaining (in the event that investigative work or partial closure is undertaken) towards further traffic calming measures within the local villages referred to above.

h) In the event that monies are not expended up to the cap in items b), c) and d) they may be utilised for further traffic calming or similar measures within local villages.

The additional ‘package’ of highway studies to be secured by the s106 agreement reflected discussions and concerns raised at the previous committee meetings together with those raised in a meeting between the developer and local and parish councillor on 16 June 2008.

The minutes of that committee meeting reflect that Members agreed the officer recommendation subject to the variations as detailed below:

a) No changes

b) implementation of a traffic study within the Windlesham Village area (the brief and scope of the study to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and the County Highway Authority after consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ward councillors) and the design, consultation and implementation of further traffic calming measures within the village that might be derived from the traffic study to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham village to access the development. The study brief and potential measures arising should also include Bagshot village.

(Officer Note : text in italics denotes additions following member debate, it should be noted that the maximum spend of £100,00 has been removed)

14

c) implementation of a traffic study within Chobham Village (the brief and scope of the

study to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and the County Highway Authority after consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ward councillors) and the design, consultation and implementation of further traffic calming measures within the village that might be derived from the traffic study to discourage development traffic from using Chobham village to access the development. The maximum expenditure on these works shall be limited to £50,000 and index linked to the date of the consent.

(Officer Note : text in italics denotes additions following member debate)

d) if it is not necessary to close Staple Hill Road in the Borough of Runnymede or if

investigative work or only partial closure is undertaken (as provided for in the draft Section 106 Agreement with Runnymede Borough Council), the contribution of a sum up to £100,000 or the balance of the sum remaining be put towards further traffic calming measures within the local villages of Windlesham and Chobham

(Officer Note : Text in italics denotes a change following member debate)

e) in the event that monies are not expended up to the maximum amounts referred to

in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) above, the use of that money for further traffic calming or similar measures within local villages in the Borough of Surrey Heath

(Officer Note: the text in italics denotes text added following member debate).

The resolution to grant imposed a maximum time period of 6 months from the date of that meeting for the completion of the agreement. If such agreement was not reached within that timeframe the application was to be refused on the grounds that insufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that off site highway works and an ecological buffer can be satisfactorily provided to mitigate the wider development.

5 May 2009

The matter was resubmitted to the Committee with a recommendation that the period for the completion of the agreement be extended by a period of 12 months from that meeting. The Recommendation reflected the terms of the Committee Resolution of 30 June with no proposed changes. Officers submitted the matter to that Committee on the basis that negotiations had been ongoing. Members agreed the Officer Recommendation.

4.0 CONSULTATION AND REPRESENTATION RESPONSES

(re consultation undertaken 15.10.2010)

4.1 Bisley Parish Council The outline planning agreement must ensure that sufficient green space provision is included within the development itself rather than land in other areas such as Bisley being used to offset such developments.

4.2 Chobham Parish Council

Comment – As you will be aware, the scale of the proposed redevelopment of the former DERA site, directly adjacent to Chobham Common, is a very sensitive issue for our parish. We are particularly concerned about the impact that the development will have on our village infrastructure, specifically that arising from traffic generated by the site. We are also concerned about its

15

potentially adverse impact on the Chobham Common National Nature Reserve.

There has been local speculation that the site might be reconsidered for mixed commercial and residential development which, in our view, would be even more damaging. Consequently, we would wish to see no weakening of the planning conditions under which existing permission has been granted. We would also like to reiterate our request to be fully engaged with the proposed traffic study as and when this work takes place.

4.3 Surrey Wildlife Trust No objection to an extension of time for the completion of the s106 agreement. The Trust would however wish to comment on any changes which may affect the biodiversity value of the locality with particular reference to Chobham Common.

4.4 Chobham Society Objection summarised (as relevant to this committee) :

1. Traffic implications for the villages and surrounding lanes 2. development will result in 6000+ plus traffic movements a

day 3. request for an extension of time to complete the s106

should be turned down and the whole site reappraised and reduced to a level equivalent to the existing development

At the time of writing 2 letters of objection have been received which raise traffic generation and highway safety as objections to the proposed development.

5.0 UPDATE

5.1 The purpose of this report is three fold. In the first instance it seeks Committee approval to extend the time period for the completion of the legal agreement required to ensure that the impact of the development is mitigated, secondly, and closely aligned to the first matter, it seeks to update Members on the negotiations surrounding the drafting of the s106 and in doing so details the revised package of mitigation measures contained within the current draft s106 and makes recommendations in relation to this. Thirdly the report seeks Members approval to amend a number of the proposed planning conditions as were set out in officer recommendation of 30 June 2008 and 5 May 2009.

5.2 The Section 106 Agreement

5.2.1 Under the terms of the committee resolution of 5 May 2009 the application could technically be refused. However Officers consider that such an approach would be unreasonable and could potentially not be defendable in the event of an appeal being lodged. This report therefore seeks agreement to extend the time for the completion of the agreement for 6 months from the date of this meeting.

5.2.2 The current draft s106, departs from the committee resolution of 30 June 2008. In its current form the draft s106 seeks to deliver, in so far as is relevant to this Council :

1. The submission of an ecological buffer management plan on that part of the site known as the Ecological Buffer Zone. The implementation of the Ecological Management Plan must take place prior to the occupation of any B1 Offices on the wider site. For the avoidance of doubt the Ecological Management plan will ensure provision for the future upkeep and maintenance of the Ecological Buffer Zone

16

which may be through the appointment of an ecological Management Agent approved by Surrey Heath Borough Council.

The retention of existing buildings 63, 109 and 110 within the Ecological Buffer Zone to a standard suitable for Black Redstart birds to inhabit for such time as they inhabit the Site or until such a time that a suitable alternative habitat for the birds has been provided within the Site

The retention of existing building 64.

Officer Note: It is considered that the above provisions reflect the resolution of 30 June 2008 and are in line with the Appropriate Assessment undertaken by Runnymede Borough Council under the terms of the Regulation 52 (1) (b) co ordination agreement pursuant to Regulations 48 and 49 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & C) Regulations 1994 as amended.

2. To consult Surrey Heath Borough Council on the nature of the brief and scope of all Traffic Studies affecting Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Villages and thereafter to ensure that the comments and suggestions of Surrey Heath Borough Council are duly considered when drawing up the methodology for the conduct of any Traffic Studies relating to Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Villages as provided under the terms of this Agreement.

To agree with the County Council the methodology for the First Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study prior to Occupation of more than 77,320 square metres gross floor area of B1 offices.

To carry out the First Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study prior to Occupation of more than 77,320 square metres gross floor area of B1 offices and to carry out the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and the Second Chobham Village Traffic Study upon full Occupation of the Development or three years after completion of the First Windlesham Village Traffic Study and the First Chobham Village Traffic Study whichever is the earlier.

To carry out, the Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works within 18months following completion of the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study and to carry out the Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works within 18 months following completion of the Second Chobham Village Traffic Study.

Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works are defined within the agreement as those traffic calming works up to a maximum cost of £55,000 (of which up to £5,000 is to be used for design fees) the design and implementation and the cost of the First Chobham Traffic Study and the Second Chobham Traffic Study) as may be determined as required by the Second Chobham Traffic Study to discourage development traffic from using Chobham Village to access the Site.

Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works are defined within the agreement as traffic calming works as may be determined as required by the Second Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Study [up to a maximum of £110,000 (of which £10,000 is to be used for design fees)] (to include the design and implementation and the cost of the First Windlesham Village Traffic Study and the Second Windlesham Village Traffic Study) to discourage development traffic from using Windlesham Village to access the Site.

In the event that the contribution towards the Chobham Village Traffic Calming Works and/or the Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Calming Works has not

17

been spent in full then any balance remaining shall be spent on any traffic calming measures within villages falling within Surrey Heath Borough Council affected by the Development.

Officer Note: It is clear from the resolution of 30 June 2008 that this Council wished to be involved in the design of the traffic studies; further the wording of that resolution could be interpreted to mean that Planning Applications Committee level agreement was required on the brief and design of those studies. However discussions on this point have effectively stalled with strong objection being raised by County Highways to the degree of control being sought by this Council. The main concern is that the extent of involvement sought by this Council is beyond what could be sought by a local planning authority. The issue and extent of Highway Woks is a matter that to be addressed by a Highway Authority. Point 2 above therefore reflects a diluted version of the resolution of 30 June 2008 to accord with what can be sought by the Council.

The revised draft s106 also seeks to impose trigger points for the agreement (with the County Council) of the brief and design of the traffic studies and their implementation. In this respect under the terms of the revised ‘package’ offered by the applicant the methodology for the first Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Village Traffic Study would be agreed with County prior to the occupation of more than 77,320m2 of B1 office space, furthermore these studies would also be implemented prior to this level of occupation. The second Windlesham, Bagshot and Chobham Village Traffic studies would be undertaken either, within three years of the completion of the first round of studies or, upon full occupation of the development. The traffic calming works themselves would be undertaken within 18 months following the completion of the second round of traffic studies.

At first glance it may seem that using the occupation of 77,320m2 of B1 floor space as the trigger point for agreement on the design and implementation of the first round of traffic studies is unreasonable and likely to lead to detrimental highway conditions in the short term. However this trigger point reflects the amount of readily useable floor area available on site presently. Further it should be noted that this floor area could, in its entirety, be brought back into use without the need for any planning permission or any highway mitigation studies or works. This figure therefore forms the baseline against which the wider development’s impact on the highway network is to be assessed. It is therefore considered a logical and reasonable level at which to undertake the first round of traffic studies.

A further point to consider is that the original resolution did not make any reference to a trigger point(s) and accordingly it would not have been possible to enforce this requirement. In essence this is because that requirement would not have been time bound and accordingly the Council would never have been in a position to demonstrate non compliance.

Members will note that the figure of £50,000 stated in the resolution of 30 June 2008 for the design, consultation and implementation of further traffic calming measures has been increased to £55,000 and that £5,000 of this is to be spent on design fees.

It is also noted that the revised draft s106 reintroduces a maximum spend associated with Windlesham and Bagshot Village Traffic Studies of £110,000 of which £10,000 is to be spent on design fees. The background history above sets out that the Officer Recommendation of 30 June included a maximum spend for these works of £100,000 and that this pertained solely to Windlesham Village. The minutes of this meeting indicate that this maximum figure was removed as it was thought that it potentially conflicted with the terms of the s106 agreement being agreed with Runnymede Borough Council. This has since been identified as being incorrect and no such conflict exists, further as discussed at

18

paragraph 5.3.3 below, it is considered unreasonable not to agree a maximum figure for this contribution.

The pooling of contributions if required would assist if there is a shortfall for one and an underspend on the other, to enable a greater degree of flexibility of provision. The provision that the balance of any monies not spent on works associated with the traffic studies be made available for traffic calming or similar measures within local villages in the Borough of Surrey Heath has also been diluted slightly and as can be seen in the final para of point 2 above, the phrase ‘or similar measures’ has been removed.

It should also be noted that part d of the resolution of 30 June 2008 (relating to the closure of Staple Hill Road) has not be carried forward within the current draft s106 as a covenant between this Council and the applicant. The road closure would be a matter for the Highway Authority rather than this Council as the Local Planning Authority. The covenants therefore appear as covenants between the applicant and the County. Further this requires that ‘where there remains a balance of the Staple Hill Contribution’ such balance can be used for traffic calming measures in other villages.

5.3 Officer Assessment of Draft s106 agreement

5.3.1 For ease of reference a summary document detailing the heads of terms of the s106 as detailed in the Report to the Planning Applications Committee on 30.06.2008, the amended wording resulting from Member debate at that meeting and that now proposed is given as an appendix to this report.

5.3.2 It is considered that the introduction triggers for the design and implementation of the required traffic studies is appropriate, further the use of the existing office floor area as the first trigger for these works is considered reasonable given that this is the existing baseline figure. It is further considered that the stated triggers points for the design and implementation of the second ranch of traffic studies is appropriate.

5.3.3 The reintroduction of a maximum spend for the design and implementation of traffic studies pertaining to Windlesham and Bagshot villages could be regarded as a retrograde step. However Circular 05/05 entitled Planning Obligations provides guidance on the use of planning obligations and states that a planning obligation must be necessary, directly related and reasonable in scale and kind to the proposed development. In this context the existing level of office space on site coupled with the nature and quantum of development on that part of the site within the administrative boundary of Surrey Heath Borough Council should be given material weight in assessing the level of contribution being sought. Furthermore the aforementioned guidance clearly advises that s106 contributions should be reasonable in all other regards, it is therefore considered that not agreeing to a financial cap for these works would be unreasonable and would fail the ‘tests’ set out above and could, ultimately result in this obligation being unenforceable.

5.3.4 The covenant with the County that any balance remaining from the closure of Staple Hill Road be spent on traffic calming works in other villages within the vicinity of the site is disappointing. However it is considered unreasonable to object to this aspect of the agreement in context of the scale and quantum of the development within this Council’s administrative boundary.

5.3.5 The draft agreement does however dilute the role this Council will have in the agreement of the design of the traffic studies. However legal advice on this matter advises that County Highways Authority should have the lead role in this matter, furthermore under the terms of the revised s106 agreement the Council will be a consultee in this process and the comments and suggestions made will be duly considered.

5.3.6 As currently drafted the maximum amounts to be spent of the various traffic studies are not index linked. This is considered unacceptable and as such Officers recommend that any

19

resolution to grant planning permission should be subject to the requirement that indexation is included. This is therefore included in Section 2 of this Report.

5.3.7 Given the considerable time spent on this matter thus far, it is considered reasonable to further extend the time period for the completion of the s106 agreement.

5.4 The proposed schedule of planning conditions

5.4.1 The Committee Report of 30 June 2008 proposed a number of planning conditions. It is necessary to amend these for a number of reasons, not least to reflect the changes to the planning policy framework and to prevent unnecessary repetition with either the requirements of the s106 agreement or conditions to be imposed by Runnymede Borough Council. The proposed amended conditions are given at Section 2 of this Report. For completeness a copy of the conditions originally proposed is provided as an Appendix to this Report. This appendix serves to provide a brief justification for the proposed amendments.

6.0 CONCLUSION

6.1 This application has been before the Planning Applications Committee previously and has benefited from a resolution to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the imposition of planning conditions. This planning permission was never issued because no progress was made on the s106 agreement. This report seeks agreement to further extend the time period for the completion of the s106 agreement for 6 months from this date of this meeting. This report also sets out the details the revised head of terms for the s106 and seeks to explain why Officers are of the opinion that these will mitigate the impact of the proposal. The final aspect of this report sets out to detail a revised schedule of draft planning conditions. On balance it is considered that the mitigation measures to be secured by both the s106 agreement and the draft planning conditions are satisfactory and that conditional outline planning permission should be granted.

20

02 2010/0375 Reg Date 09/11/2010 Parkside LOCATION: LAND TO THE REAR OF AUTUMN LODGE & MARAVAL,

SPRINGFIELD ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 1AB PROPOSAL: Erection of two, 5 bedroom detached dwellings, two detached

double garages and formation of a new vehicular access. TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr P Bardini OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application proposes the erection of two detached two-storey dwellinghouses, each with a detached double garage, on the land to the rear of Maraval and Autumn Lodge with the retention of these properties on a reduced curtilage. The proposed dwellings would be served by a new access to be created from Springfield Road which would pass between the two existing properties.

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

The principle of the development

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

The impact of the development on residential amenities

The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

The impact of the development on nature conservation interests

The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

1.3 The report concludes that the development would fail to respect the pattern of the existing development in the area and it is considered the siting of the dwellings in combination with the creation of the new access would detract from the character and the quality of the area to which the application site currently contributes. Given the harm to the character of the area there is no justification to allow development on this Greenfield site.

1.4 By reason of the close proximity of house plot 2 to the boundary with Maraval, it is considered that the proposed first floor bedroom windows will result in direct overlooking of the garden amenity area of Maraval to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of this property.

1.5 Reasons for refusal are also recommended given the absence of a completed planning obligation, the application fails to secure mitigation against the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and its impact on Local Infrastructure Provision. It is however acknowledged that these reasons for refusal could be overcome should a suitable obligation be provided.

21

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The proposed development would fail to respect the pattern of the existing development in the area and it is considered the siting of the dwellings, in combination with the creation of the new access, would result in an incongruous form of development which would detract from the character and the quality of the area to which the application site currently contributes. Given the harm to the character of the area there is no justification to allow new development on this Greenfield site. The application is therefore contrary to the objectives of policies G4 and H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the guidance contained in PPS3 (June 2010).

2. The proposed siting of house plot 2 with first floor bedroom windows in close

proximity to the boundary and private amenity area of Maraval, would create an unneighbourly relationship resulting in overlooking and a loss of of privacy to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupiers of Maraval. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

3. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of

available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (The Habitat Regulations) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitat Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

4. 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 G3 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 in relation to the provision of infrastructure contributions towards, transport, libraries, equipped playspace, environmental improvements, community facilities and recycling, in accordance with the requirements of Surrey Heath Borough Councils ‘Planning Infrastructure Contributions’ Scheme.

Informative(s)

1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the fact that the submitted Tree Protection Plan PRI27305-03 does not appear to scale correctly.

22

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

3.2 Relevant planning history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 The 0.25ha application site is located on the north side of Springfield Road and currently comprises part of the residential curtilage of properties known as Maraval and Autumn Lodge. The site includes the rear most section of the garden of these residential properties and also includes a section running between the properties to the highway to give vehicle access to the site.

4.2 The site is bounded to the east, west and south by residential properties while the north of the site bounds Camberley Heath Golf Club. The application site is largely laid to grass, but also includes some mature planting and trees, most notably along the common boundary between the properties. There are also some significant trees to the front of the site. There are no significant level changes within the site although there is a gentle slope down from the highway at the front to the golf course at the rear of the site.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 There is no planning history for this site which is relevant to the current proposal.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the erection of two detached two-storey dwellinghouses, each with a detached double garage, on the land to the rear of Maraval and Autumn Lodge with the retention of these properties on a reduced curtilage. The proposed dwellings would be served by a new access to be created from Springfield Road which would pass between the two existing properties. The proposal would achieve a density of 8dph.

6.2 Plot 1 would be located to the rear of Autumn Lodge and would be sited approximately 11 metres from the proposed rear boundary with this property and would be approximately 34 metres from its rear elevation. The proposed dwelling would be two-storey with a hipped pitched roof and a hipped gable projection centrally located on the front elevation. The building would have a maximum height of approximately 9.2 metre and would measure approximately 5.4 metres to the eves. The property would be provided with a private area of amenity space to the rear and would include a double garage located to the front of the dwelling accessed from the shared driveway.

6.3 Plot 2 would be located to the rear of Maraval and would be sited approximately 8.5 metres from the proposed rear boundary with this property and would be approximately 30 metres from its rear elevation. This dwelling would also be two-storey with a hipped pitched roof but would have a gable projection centrally located on the front elevation. The building would have a maximum height of approximately 9.2 metre and would measure approximately 5.4 metres to the eves. The property would be provided with a private area of amenity space to the rear and would include a double garage located to the side of the dwelling also accessed from the shared driveway.

23

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway Authority

No objection to the development proposed.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

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

Impact on private road (see para 9.6)

Highway safety (see para 9.6)

Impact on character of area (see para 9.4)

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan and is bounded to the north by a Green Space and a Site of Nature Conservation Importance. As such policies G3, G4, UE1, RE12, H18, H19, H23, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies CC7, H5 and NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national guidance set out in PPS1, PPS3, PPS9 and PPG13 is also a material consideration.

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

The principle of the development

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

The impact of the development on residential amenities

The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

The impact on nature conservation interests

The impact on local infrastructure provision

9.3 The principle of the development

9.3.1 The application site is located within the settlement area as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan and within the settlement area the principle of residential development is generally acceptable. It is however noted that on the 9th June 2010 an amended version of PPS3 was published which 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 comprises what is currently private residential garden land and accordingly the site can not be considered to be Previously Developed Land.

9.3.2 PPS3 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 access 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

24

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.

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

9.4.1 The application site is located in an area which is characterised by low density residential development and typically comprises large detached houses set within large well landscaped plots. Properties generally front on to the street and are set well back from the highway with defined front gardens. The residential development on the north side of Springfield Road backs directly on to Camberley Heath Golf Course and the size of the plots, together with the deep rear gardens serves as a transitional form of development between the urban area and the openness of the golf course. The application proposes the erection of two detached properties to the rear of the existing properties with the retention of these properties on a reduced curtilage. The proposed properties would be accessed by a new shared drive to be created to run between Maraval and Autumn Lodge.

9.4.2 The development proposed would introduce a second tier of development to the rear of that which currently fronts this part of Springfield Road and would erode the existing character which derives from the large properties on deep plots which front the highway. The proposed dwellings would also be sited on much more restricted plots. The proposed dwelling plots would reduce the size and spacious setting of the existing properties to the detriment of the character of this part of the vicinity. The introduction of a formal new access at the front of the site running between the properties would serve to emphasis the presence of development to the rear and would add to the harm to the character of the area.

9.4.3 It is acknowledged that direct views of the dwellings from Springfield Road would be limited however the properties would be visible in part and the access would make it clear that there was a second tier of development in this location and the proposed properties would also be clearly visible from the golf course to the rear which is a quasi public area. Notwithstanding this the Development Plan requires new development to respect the character and pattern of existing development and this assessment is a wider test than whether the development can be seen from public land. The limited public views of the development should therefore not be seen as a justification for supporting a development which fails to respect the existing pattern of development and one that is harmful to the character of the area. It is also acknowledge that a new dwelling to the rear of Woodland was granted consent and was recently completed. The circumstances surrounding this application are however materially different to the decision to approve a dwelling at the rear of woodland should not be seen as a precedent for allowing further development to the rear of properties along Springfield Road where that development would be harmful.

9.4.4 The application site includes a number of trees and some mature landscaping, most notably along the common boundary between Maraval and Autumn Cottage, and within the front garden of Autumn Cottage. The development proposed includes the retention of most of the trees to the front of the site and although some clearance is required to accommodated the vehicular access any tree loss could be mitigated by suitable replacement planting. In the event that permission was to be granted conditions to protect the existing trees and to secure additional planting should be included.

9.4.5 Having regard to the above, it is concluded that the development would fail to respect the pattern of the existing development in the area and it is considered that the dwellings proposed in combination with the new access would detract from the character and the quality of the area to which the application site currently contributes. The application is therefore contrary to the objectives of policies G4 and H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and conflicts with the guidance contained in PPS3.

25

9.5 The impact of the development on residential amenities

9.5.1 The application site is located directly to the rear of Maraval and Autumn Lodge and would also share common boundaries with the residential properties known as Heath Rise to the west and Hamilton House to the east.

9.5.2 Both of the properties which adjoin the site to the side are significantly well screened from the application site by the mature landscaping which marks the common boundary. It is considered that by virtue of this screening and the relative distances between the proposed dwelling and these properties the development proposed would not impact on the amenities the occupants of these properties currently enjoy.

9.5.3 The proposed dwellings would be directly to the rear of Maraval and Autumn Lodge and would be approximately 8.5m and 11m from the rear boundaries and approximately 30m and 34m from the rear elevations of these properties respectively. It is considered that in the case of plot 2 the proposed 8.5m limited distance between the first floor windows and the boundary with Maraval would result in direct overlooking of the neighbouring garden area of Maraval, leading to a loss of privacy and a loss of amenity for the occupiers of this property creating an unneighbourly relationship.

9.5.4 In light of the above it is considered that the development would be harmful to the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of Maraval and as such conflicts with Policy H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

9.6 The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

9.6.1 The proposed dwellings would be served by a new access to be created from Springfield Road and would pass between Maraval and Autumn Lodge. This access would lead to a centrally located turning area which would give access to each property. The County Highway Authority has advised that given Springfield Road is a private road they have no comments to make on the access proposed; it has assessed the junctions with Upper Chobham Road and Prior Road and confirms that there is no highway safety objection to the proposed development.

9.6.2 Each property would be provided a detached double garage with two assigned car parking spaces located to the front of the garages; limited visitor parking would also be available within the site on the shared driveway. It is considered that the level of parking proposed would be sufficient to meet the requirements of the development and no objection should be raised to the scheme on these grounds.

9.6.3 Concern has been raised that the development proposed would caused damage to the private road however this is not a reason to withhold planning permission and is for those with an interest in the road to agree any maintenance as may be required.

9.7 The impact on nature conservation interests

9.7.1 The application site is located approximately 1km from 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 impact on the protected site. On the 29th August 2008 the Council adopted ‘The Special Protection Area – Interim Avoidance Strategy’ which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments of less than 10 dwellings (net) at a distance of between 400m and 5km of the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS.

26

9.7.2 In this instance a contribution of £7,000 would be required however at the time of the preparation of this report a suitable undertaking to secure this mitigation had yet to be completed.

9.7.3 The applicant has submitted an Ecological Survey which concludes that the application site is unlikely to be supporting any protected species and would not materially impact on the adjoining Site of Nature Conservation Importance. The Survey includes recommendations to enhance the biodiversity value of this site and any permission granted should be conditional on implementation of these recommendations.

9.8 The impact on local infrastructure provision

9.8.1 On the 1st February 2009 the Council adopted the Surrey Tariff Scheme for the purpose of securing developer contributions towards a range of infrastructure. Contributions are now required for any development providing new dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out be the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location. In this instance the development proposes the erection of 2 five-bedroom dwellings and as such requires a contribution of £20,022.64 which would be put towards transport, libraries, equipped playspace, environmental improvements, community facilities and recycling, and will ensure the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated.

9.8.2 At the time of the preparation of this report a suitable undertaking to secure this mitigation had yet to be completed.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The development would fail to respect the pattern of the existing development in the area and it is considered the siting of the dwellings in combination with the creation of the new access would detract from the character and the quality of the area to which the application site currently contributes. Given the harm to the character of the area there is no justification to allow development on this Greenfield site.

10.2 Moreover in the absence of a completed planning obligation, the application fails to secure mitigation against the impact of the development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and its impact on Local Infrastructure Provision.

27

03 2010/0606 Reg Date 04/10/2010 Bagshot LOCATION: PINEWOOD, 93 COLLEGE RIDE, BAGSHOT, GU19 5EP PROPOSAL: Erection of a part three storey, part four storey 69 bed care

home (Use Class C2) together with alterations and conversion of existing Locally Listed Building (Pinewood) from office (B1) to provide ancillary facilities to care home, with associated landscaping, formation of internal access road and parking. (Amended plans rec'd 28/10/10).

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr R Elsmore

Darwin Developments Ltd OFFICER: Gill Hillage

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The application proposes the conversion of a vacant locally listed building known as "Pinewood" and the erection of a new linked circular building to comprise a 69 bed care home.

1.2 There is an extant permission (07/0927) for the conversion of Pinewood together with single storey extension, to a special needs school and the erection of three detached office buildings. This permission is subject to a legal agreement which imposes restrictions relating to the Special Protection Area immediately adjoining the rear of the site and a financial contribution towards auditing of a Travel Plan.

1.3 The site is located in the countryside beyond the green belt wherein new commercial building is normally resisted. However, historically new office development has been permitted on this site and the last extant permission which approves part two storey part three storey office floor space of 1426 sq m, is a material consideration.

1.4 The current proposal comprises a new three/four storey circular shaped building of some 3420 sq m of floor space. The increase in floor space must be weighed against any other special circumstances or benefits that the scheme may bring, to determine whether they lend sufficient weight to justify the increase in floor space now being proposed and overriding the normal policy presumption against such new development in the countryside.

1.5 The following issues are examined in the report

the principle of the development

the scale/design of the new building and its impact on the character of the area

the impact of the proposal on the locally listed building (Pinewood)

the impact of the proposal on residential amenities

the impact of the proposal on ecology, SNCI and SSSI/SPA

highway/parking implications

whether there are special circumstances/benefits to justify the increase in floor space proposed

other issues (drainage, renewable energy)

28

1.6 The report concludes that whilst the proposal does bring benefits, particularly with respect to the preservation of the locally listed building and the proposed care home use of the site is considered to be appropriate for this sensitively located site in proximity to the SPA, these benefits are not however considered to be so significant as to justify the scale of the new building and the large increase in floor space proposed, together with the loss of some visually important trees from the site. In addition, the absence of a signed obligation to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the SPA and to secure a financial contribution towards auditing of a travel plan, could give rise to harm to the SPA and a detrimental impact on local transport. The application is therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out below.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The proposal is for a part three storey part four storey linked extension to an existing building "Pinewood", located in the countryside beyond the green belt. It is considered that the height and scale of the proposed new building coupled with the elevated corridor link, would give rise to a harmful impact on the openness and rural character of the countryside, contrary to the objectives of Policies G4 and RE3 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

2. The proposed development entails the removal of a group of three preserved

sweet chestnut trees which make a significant contribution to the environment and the site. The loss of these trees would give rise to a detrimental impact on the visual amenity and character of the locality, contrary to the objective of Policy G24 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved)

3. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of

available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 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 Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

4. In the absence of a completed legal obligation under section 106 of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990, to secure a financial contribution towards auditing of a Travel Plan, it cannot be demonstrated that the proposal would encourage the use of alternative modes of transport and reduce reliance on the car so as to not give rise to increased pressure on the local highway network. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policy M5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), Policy T5 of The South East Plan 2009 and the advice of PPG 13 "Transport".

29

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses and representations

3.2 Previous decisions referred to in Relevant History.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 This 2.2 ha site is located to the north west of College Ride and is accessed via a shared driveway leading onto a private road, Pinewood Gardens.

4.2 The site comprises a large vacant Victorian building "Pinewood", set in landscaped grounds. The building is predominantly two storey with a later single storey addition to the east and a conservatory attached to the western flank. The building is locally listed and was last in use as offices in 2001.

4.3 The site is located in the countryside beyond the green belt adjoining the settlement area of Bagshot adjacent to a designated site of nature conservation importance (SNCI) which forms part of Bagshot Heath. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area is located to the north of the application site.

4.4 There are varying levels on the site with flatter more open areas around the existing building and a steep slope down to the north of the building towards wooded areas and a pond beyond. Much of the lower wooded area and the pond, fall outside the boundary of the application site. In addition to the wooded area there are many mature trees within the open garden area and around all boundaries of the application site. These trees are preserved by Tree Preservation Order no. 2/05.

4.5 Residential properties in Pinewood Gardens adjoin the southern boundary of the site and a house known as Pinewood Cottage, which shares the same access drive as Pinewood, is located to the north east.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 89/1435 Permission was granted for a 2 storey laboratory (1074 sqm). This was not implemented.

5.2 92/0521 Permission was granted for a part 2 storey part single storey research building (1655 sq m). This was not implemented.

5.3 98/0744 Permission was granted for a part 2 storey/part 3 storey building and link to existing building (803 sq m). This was not implemented.

5.4 02/0045 Permission was granted for a 2 storey office building and basement together with link to main building, following demolition of existing conservatory and outbuildings (1342 sq m). This has not been implemented.

5.5 06/0398 Permission was refused to change the use of the existing building from Class B1 (office) to Class D1 (educational use) together with extension of the existing building and erection of detached office building.

5.6 06/0404 An application to change the use of the existing building from office to special needs school together with extensions and the erection of 15 dwelling units was received and an appeal lodged on grounds of non determination. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.

30

5.7 07/0927 Permission was granted to change the use of the existing building from Class B1 (office) to Class D1 (educational use) together with extensions (366 sq m) and erection of 3 detached office buildings (1426 sq m). The application was subject to a 106 obligation to secure controls to protect the adjoining SPA. This permission has not been implemented and remains extant.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The proposal is for the conversion of the existing building "Pinewood" and the erection of a linked circular building to comprise a 69 bed care home.

6.2 The refurbishment of the existing building includes the demolition of the conservatory on the south elevation and single storey extensions on the northern elevation together with minor internal alterations to provide office and visitors rooms and communal lounges, cinema room and hairdressers on the ground floor and office/staff rooms/meeting rooms and stores on the first floor. In all other respects the existing building will be retained in its original state. No bedroom accommodation is proposed within the existing building.

6.3 The large circular extension which would accommodate the 69 bedrooms would be located approximately 10m to the north of Pinewood and would be linked to the existing building by a single storey glazed enclosed walkway elevated on stilts. The new building would have three full floors of accommodation and a fourth smaller lower ground floor would accommodate kitchen, plant room, laundry, stores, staff facilities and a morgue. A total floor area of 3,420 sq m is proposed which would be arranged as follows:

lower ground floor - 150 sq m

ground floor - 1090 sq m

first floor - 1090 sq m

second floor - 1090 sq m

Each of the floors above the lower ground floor would accommodate 23 bedrooms, bathrooms and a day room.

A landscaped courtyard sitting area would be provided in the centre of the building, which would be partially roofed over.

6.4 The building would have a shallow mono pitched roof and would be sited so as to utilise the drop in levels on the site. The height of the building would vary from between 10m to 13m high but would be sited on a lower level of land than the existing building which varies in height from between 8.5m to 11.5 m. The circular building would be broken in part by a a three storey flat roofed glazed corridor link and a further segment of the building would project out from the main circumference of the building to provide day rooms on each of the three floors and a kitchen on the lower ground floor. The day rooms would feature long curved balconies at first and second floor level.

6.5 The submitted design and access statement advises that the external materials of the circular building would comprise a combination of render, brick and cedar cladding with galvanized steel roof coverings to pitched roofs. The single storey glazed corridor link would be sedum covered (grass roof).

6.6 Car parking would be provided in two separate areas. An amended parking layout plan has been submitted, which shows a barrier controlled staff car park of 17 spaces, located to the northern side of Pinewood and a visitor car park of 11 spaces sited to the south of

31

Pinewood. A new central circular driveway would be created to the front of Pinewood which would lead onto the existing vehicular drive and access onto Pinewood Gardens. This access currently serves Pinewood and one other private dwellinghouse. A new delivery, fire access would run to the rear of the circular care home, where a small parking area for a mini bus and bin storage area, would also be located.

6.6 The trees on the site are protected by a area tree preservation order. The submitted tree survey recommends that 5 trees require to be felled for arboricultural reasons and a further 10 are required to be felled to make way for the new driveway and building. The majority of the trees to be felled are C grade trees but 4 of the trees to be felled to make way for the new building and driveway are B grade trees. Extensive new tree planting is proposed around the buildings and former hardsurfaced car parking areas to the east and west of the new care home would be removed and returned to soft landscaping.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway Authority

Raises no objection subject to conditions and an obligation to secure a financial contribution of £4,600 towards auditing of a Travel Plan.

7.2 Windlesham Parish Council

Raises no objection.

7.3 Natural England Raises no objection subject to the use being restricted to C2 use and for residents who are too infirm or have reduced mobility making it unlikely that they will walk around the nearby SPA and subject to other restrictions/conditions to protect the SPA and SNCI, as set out below.

7.4 Surrey Wildlife Trust Raises no objection subject to conditions as set out below, to protect the SNCI, SPA and ecological habitat and protected species on the site.

7.5 Environment Agency Raises no objection subject to a hydrological assessment being undertaken and approved .

7.6 Arboricultural Officer Raises objection with respect to the loss of 3 high quality Grade B Sweet Chestnut trees which make a valuable contribution to the character of the site. He considers this tree loss to be avoidable.

7.7 Surrey County Historic Buildings Advisor

Considers that the slight degree of harm to the locally listed building that would arise from the proposal is justified given that the proposal will allow the locally listed building to remain in single use.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report 38 representations have been received comprising 22 letters of objection and 16 letters of support. The following issues are raised in the letters of objection:

8.1 College Ride too narrow to accommodate additional traffic (see para. 9.9)

increased traffic congestion on surrounding road network (see para. 9.9)

32

scale of care home too large (see para.9.5)

no need for further care homes in Bagshot (see para 9.10)

increased strain on local doctors surgeries and other amenities(see para 9.11)

commercial venture inappropriate in a residential area (see para. 9.4)

lack of on site parking will lead to parking in College Ride(see para. 9.9)

new building out of character with its surroundings (see para. 9.5)

contrary to local plan policies RE3 and E4 (see para 9.4)

8.2 A letter of support has been received from Pinewood Gardens Residents Association, which advises that the owners of the site have fully discussed the proposals with them and that they have been pleased with the whole consultation process. Other comments made in letters of support:

This application will cause far less traffic problems than the previous permission for school and offices

this appears to be a good solution to an impossible situation

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The site is located in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt and adjoins the Bagshot Heath Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) with the Thames Basin Heaths SPA located beyond, to the north.

9.2 The development plan policies most relevant to the consideration of this proposal are as follows:

South East Plan 2009 :

Policy CC4 : Sustainable Design & Construction

Policy CC5 : Supporting an Ageing Population

Policy T4 : Parking

Policy NRM: Water Quality

Policy NRM5: Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity

Policy NRM11: Development Design for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

Policy BE1 : Management for an Urban Renaissance

Policy BE6 : Management of the Historic Environment

Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) :

Policy G4 : Design Principles

33

Policy G9 : Energy Conservation

Policy G24 : Retention of Trees

Policy H10 :Structure of Local Significance

Policy RE3 : Countryside beyond the Green Belt

Policy RE12 : Sites of Nature Conservation Importance

Policy RE13 : Nature Conservation Interest

Policy E4 : Loss of Industrial and Commercial Sites

Policy M5 : Impact on Travel Demand

Policy M7 : Off Street Car Parking

The following national guidance is also applicable:

PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment

PPG13 Transport

9.3 In light of the above policy background the main issues in this case are considered to be :

the principle of the development

the scale/design of the new building and its impact on the character of the area

the impact of the proposal on the locally listed building (Pinewood)

the impact of the proposal on residential amenities

the impact of the proposal on ecology, SNCI and SSSI/SPA

highway/parking implications

whether there are special circumstances/benefits to justify the increase in floor space proposed

other issues (drainage, renewable energy, third party comments)

9.4 The Principle of the Development

9.4.1 Policy E4 seeks to resist the loss of land in commercial uses unless the site is unsuitably located. The principle of the loss of the former office use from the existing building Pinewood, is established by the extant permission (07/0927), which approved the conversion of Pinewood to school use. Furthermore the applicant advises that the property has been marketed for office use over a number of years but no tenant secured, in part due to the economic downturn but also in part due to the isolated, poor location for a commercial premises. No objection is therefore raised to the loss of the existing office use from the premises.

34

9.4.2 The site is located in close proximity to the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and as such the proposed use of the premises as a care home providing a high level of care for those with limited mobility and a high degree of infirmity, would be acceptable in principle, subject to restrictions being imposed on the development to protect the SPA from harm.

9.4.3 The site is also located in the Countryside beyond the Green Belt wherein Policy RE3 seeks to protect the openness and rural character of the countryside. This policy also advises that the extension of an existing business premises in the countryside is acceptable in principle, provided that there would be no significant change in the scale of the building. PPS4 encourages economic development in rural areas whilst seeking to ensure that the countryside is protected for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, by strictly controlling new economic development in the open countryside and supporting the conversion and re-use of existing buildings, particularly those closely related to towns or villages.

9.4.3 Whilst the proposal entails the re-use of an existing building that is closely related to the village of Bagshot, it also entails a large new build extension in the form of a linked circular shaped building.

9.4.4 The submitted planning statement acknowledges that the site lies within an area of building restraint where countryside policies limit areas of new building, however it considers that the merits of the proposal outweigh any perceived harm resulting from the development. The scale and impact of the new building on the countryside and the merits and material circumstances that may apply to this proposal are examined below.

9.5 The scale/design of the new building and its impact on the character of the area.

9.5.1 The new building would be three full storeys with a fourth half floor which would sit into the lower land level on the site. The four storey element of the building would be some 13m in height. The building would comprise a total gross floorspace of 3420 sq m. In addition to this new floorspace there would also be a long 2m wide glazed corridor erected between the new building and the existing building Pinewood. This corridor link would be elevated on stilts and given the drop in land level on site, it would lead from the ground floor of Pinewood to the second floor of the new circular extension.

9.5.2 The extant permission (07/0927) which includes new office building and extensions to Pinewood, is a material consideration. This permission approved 1426 sq m of new office floorspace and extensions to Pinewood of 336 sq m, giving a total of 1792 sq m of new floorspace. The office buildings were in three distinct blocks and would be up to three storeys in height (max. 9m high).

9.5.3 The submitted planning statement makes a comparison between the extant permission and the current proposal in terms of the visual impact of new built form and advises that the current proposal is for a " more compact building which is sited to take advantage of the change in levels across the site. In effect this will result in less impact on the adjacent Locally Listed building Pinewood and the openness of the surrounding countryside."

9.5.4 The submitted design and access statement advises that the design of the extension has been led by the needs and space standards required of a modern care home and also to be sympathetic to the former dwelling house " Pinewood". A modern contemporary design is proposed which will not compete with the Victorian architecture of Pinewood. Although largely three storeys in height, the change in land levels will give rise to a building that would appear lower than the ridge height of Pinewood.

9.5.6 The new circular building would be set a minimum distance of 15m away from Pinewood,partly so as not to compete with the locally listed building and partly so as to utilise the change in land level on the site. The new circular building would accommodate all the bedrooms whilst Pinewood would accommodate communal facilities, offices, staff and

35

visitors rooms. The design and access statement advises that the circular shape results in optimal use of space and energy whilst providing an attractive and interesting design. The circular design of the new build allows for a central, partially enclosed, atrium to be landscaped to provide a courtyard internal garden and seating area.

9.5.7 It is acknowledged that the proposal would give rise to a considerable reduction in hardsurfacing when compared with the extant permission. This is brought about by a reduced parking requirement to support a care home when compared with office and school uses and the removal of a previously approved playground. Existing former hard surfaced parking areas to the west and east of the new building would also be removed from the site and returned to soft landscaping.

9.5.8 Whilst overall site coverage relating to hardstanding would be reduced, the large circumference of the new building would occupy a larger site area than the extant permission and would be in part, a storey higher. More than 1628 sq m of additional floorspace is proposed above that previously approved for this site. The new circular extension is considered to represent a significant increase in scale and height when compared with the existing building and the extant permission. Policy G4 advises that development in the countryside should be restricted to two storeys unless the characteristics of the site and surrounding areas are such that no harmful visual impact or harm to the area's rural character would arise and Policy RE3 requires that there should be no significant change in the scale of existing business premises in the countryside.

9.5.9 The site is fairly isolated and some distance from residential properties to the west and south, but dwellings are sited close by to the east and north and one property, Pinewood Cottage shares the access drive and will pass the new development to gain access to that property. In addition, there would be regular visitors to the care home. As such the development would be clearly visible in the public domain and whilst the drop in land level helps to conceal some of the bulk and height of the building when viewed in a northerly direction, the full height and scale of the building would be apparent when viewed from the north in a southerly direction. Furthermore, the long elevated corridor link will add to the visual impact of the development. It is concluded that the scale and height of the new building would give rise to a detrimental impact on the openness and character of its rural surroundings. The corridor link would add to this visual harm and impact on openness. As such the development would be contrary to the objectives of Policies RE3 and G4.

9.5.10 Furthermore, the extant permission did not entail the removal of any trees from the site. The current proposal, would entail the felling of 11 trees, four of which are Grade B. A group of three sweet chestnut trees that would be felled to make way for the new building are considered to be of particular visual significance and quality to the site and surroundings. These trees are visible from the shared access drive and it is considered that their loss would give rise to a detrimental visual impact on the character of the site and the rural surrounds, contrary to the objectives of Policy G24, which seeks to retain trees that make a significant contribution to the environment of a site. The Arboriculturalist also raises objection to the loss of these trees and comments that whilst individually the trees are classified as grade B, they are arguably of a higher amenity value when considered as a group.

9.6 The Impact of the Proposal on the Locally Listed Building (Pinewood).

9.6.1 PPS5 seeks to conserve heritage assets and the historic environment and advises that wherever possible, heritage assets should be put to an appropriate and viable use. Pinewood is a locally listed building comprising a heritage asset of architectural and historic significance.

9.6.2 The County historic buildings officer advises that Pinewood is a fine country house built about 1870 and the building is well worthy of saving. The heritage statement submitted by the applicant advises that the house was originally constructed for the Elphinstone family

36

and Sir Howard Elphinstone who served as a Captain with the Royal Engineers in the Crimean War, later worked for Queen Victoria and had overseen the construction of Bagshot Park nearby. The house is built to a very high standard in the Arts and Crafts style and has a number of design details similar to those found in the stables and Home farm at Bagshot Park. Although in a poor state of repair the original form of the building and the majority of the Victorian features have been retained. A good deal of internal detailing also remains.

9.6.3 The Heritage Statement concludes that the application proposals will have minimal impact on the original dwelling. The proposal includes the removal of two extensions which are later additions, unattractive and in a poor state of repair. The new building has been designed to minimise the impact on the setting of Pinewood. It would be located some distance away and to the rear such that the new structure will be obscured behind the original house. Heavy landscaping is also proposed to help separate and minimise the visual impact of the new building on Pinewood.

9.6.4 The County historic buildings advisor is satisfied that the striking difference between the new and old building will mean that the two are always read as separate elements and that the proposal will allow the building to remain in single use.

9.6.5 It can be concluded from the above that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the locally listed building. However, this in itself may not necessarily be sufficient to justify a new building of this scale in the countryside.

9.6.6 PPS5 advises that in the consideration of enabling development and whether the benefits are such as to justify a departure from the development plan, local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the level of development is the minimum necessary to secure the future conservation of the heritage asset.

9.6.7 The applicant has provided a financial viability statement, which advises that a care home of 60-70 beds is needed in order for a care home to operate on a financially viable basis, with the optimum capacity being 69 beds. The statement advises that given the constraints of the existing building, Pinewood cannot be converted to provide the financial scale or operating standards required for a modern care home and it is therefore necessary to create a stand alone purpose built construction. This statement in itself indicates that a reduction in the number of beds proposed could still provide a viable development. As such it can be concluded that the proposed development cannot be considered to be the minimum necessary to secure conservation of the locally listed building.

9.7 The impact of the proposal on residential amenities.

9.7.1 The nearest residential dwellings to the development are located to the north and east alongside the access drive some 15m to 20m away. There is a dense rhododendron/shrub screening between these properties and the site, which largely conceals views into the site. The application proposes considerably reduced parking on the site and the removal of a former car park area sited close to these residential boundaries. The proposal is therefore considered to be of a lesser impact on the amenities of adjoining residents than the former use and that of the extant permission.

9.7.2 Given the nature of the proposed use, it is likely that outside space/gardens will only have limited usage and noise levels will therefore be considerably lower than the previously approved school use with external playground areas.

9.8 The impact of the proposal on ecology, SNCI and SSSI/SPA.

9.8.1 The SNCI and SSSI/SPA immediately adjoin the wooded area of land to the north of the application site boundary ie under 400m away. Natural England advises that provided the use falls within use class C and on the understanding that the residents are too infirm

37

and/or have reduced mobility making it unlikely that they will walk around the SPA, then it would not raise objection subject to the imposition of the following restrictions:

All staff, residents and visitors to be provided with an Information Pack providing details of the fragility of the SPA

No self contained staff/resident accommodation

Measures put in place to prevent organised trips to the SPA

A pet covenant to preclude the keeping of cats and dogs on the premises

Measures to ensure the car park cannot be available to the general public

signage indicating that there is no public access to the SPA from the site.

9.8.2 The applicant has provided a draft obligation which contains the above restrictions. The obligation is not signed.

9.8.3 Natural England also advises that given the development is so close to the SPA/SSSI boundary certain measures must be in place to limit pollution, dust, disturbance and other impacts during construction works, on the protected areas. These matters could be secured by condition.

9.8.4 Surrey Wildlife Trust confirms the requirement of the Environment Agency for the applicant to provide a hydrology statement and a drainage scheme to indicate that the surrounding habitat is not adversely affected by either changes in water flow or adverse changes in water quality. It also seeks a landscape management plan and further reptile and bat surveys to be undertaken with proposed mitigation where required. Previous survey work has identified the presence of bats in the existing building and as such a European Protected Species Licence would be required to be obtained. The Trust also recommends certain biodiversity enhancements within the site. These matters can be secured by condition.

9.8.5 In the absence of a signed legal obligation to secure the measures required by Natural England to mitigate any potential harmful impact on the SPA, a reason for refusal is recommended on this ground.

9.9 Highway/Parking implications.

9.9.1 Surrey County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to securing a financial contribution towards auditing of a travel plan.

9.9.2 The submitted transport assessment concludes that the proposal would result in a significant decrease in peak hour and daily movements when compared to the previous permission for the site. The traffic generated by the approved school/office use amounted to some 446 movements (two way) per day, whereas the care home would generate 139 movements (two way) per day. The impact of the proposal on residential amenities from traffic movements to and from the site would therefore be reduced by the current proposal.

9.9.3 The use also gives rise to a much reduced on site parking requirement. A total of 28 spaces is proposed compared with the previous approval for 81 spaces. A travel plan is also proposed to encourage staff to use alternative forms of transport and reduce reliance on the car.

9.9.4 Some concern has been raised by residents over the increase in traffic using College Ride, however much of the concern expressed by local residents appears to stem from the current usage of this road by service vehicles accessing Pennyhill Park Hotel.

38

9.9.5 The highway authority has looked at the width of College Ride and the on street parking that takes place and was satisfied that the higher levels of traffic generated by the school/office uses previously approved, could be safely accommodated on this road. The reduced levels of traffic generation associated with the proposed care home use does not therefore give rise to a highway safety concern.

9.9.6 The lack of a signed obligation to secure a financial contribution towards auditing of the Travel Plan is however a concern and could give rise to increased reliance on the car and impact on transport. A reason for refusal on this ground is therefore recommended.

9.10 Whether there are special circumstances/benefits to justify the proposed increase in floor space.

9.10.1 The applicant has provided a needs assessment report relating to long term care for the elderly in Surrey Heath. The report concludes that those elderly requiring residential and nursing care in the area currently stands at 493 and by 2019 this is anticipated to increase to some 679 elderly persons. At present there are 481 single en suite bed spaces within Surrey Heath, a shortage of some 12 single en suite bed spaces. The report acknowledges that whilst the proportion of single en suite bedrooms to elderly requiring care is currently quite high, there is still room for improvement and over the next 10 years further provision will be required to support an ageing population. The report considers that to plug the growing demand an additional three 50 bed resident care homes will be required in the borough over the next 10 years.

9.10.2 The report identifies that there are currently 15 care homes in Surrey Heath of which 4 have a registration of 25 or less. It suggests that such small homes struggle to remain viable. In addition, the lack of available sites in Surrey Heath and the high land values combined with high costs of construction are proving to be a barrier to new purpose built care homes being provided in the Borough.

9.10.3 The submitted planning statement considers that the need for additional care home provision in the Borough together with the limited interest in Pinewood for office use, the long term employment that will be generated by the development and the need to preserve and bring back into use the locally listed building, are all factors that should be taken into account to justify the proposed development.

9.11 Other Issues

9.11.1 With respect to drainage, the Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to a condition requiring a sustainable drainage scheme to be submitted together with an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development.

9.11.2 With respect to renewable energy and the requirement set out in Policy NRM11 of the South East Plan to secure at least 10% of the energy requirement of new developments from renewable low carbon sources, the planning statement advises that air source heat pumps are proposed to provide over 10% of the energy requirements of the development from renewable resources. A water conservation strategy is also proposed which will combine the use of water efficient appliances with grey-water recycling and rainwater harvesting measures.

9.11.3 With respect to the development putting extra strain on local facilities, the applicant has advised that residents would not use or access any community facility provided by the Council and has included such a clause in its draft legal obligation. The scale of the proposal is not considered to be such that excessive strain would be placed on doctors surgeries.

39

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 Whilst it is acknowledged that this proposal would bring about certain benefits, particularly with respect to conservation of the locally listed building and reduced areas of hardsurfacing on the site, these benefits must be weighed against the disbenefits of the scheme, namely the scale and height of the building and the subsequent detrimental impact on the openness and character and appearance of the countryside, all contrary to the objectives of policy RE3. In addition, the proposal would entail the loss of some important high quality trees on the site, contrary to the objectives of policy G24.

10.2 The special circumstances put forward by the applicant, namely the need to provide for current and predicted demand for nursing care bed spaces in the Borough, is not considered to be so overwhelming as to justify overturning countryside policy in this case.

10.3 The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

40

04 2010/0629 Reg Date 16/09/2010 Bagshot LOCATION: NOTCUTTS GARDEN CENTRE, 150-152 LONDON ROAD,

BAGSHOT, GU19 5DG PROPOSAL: Erection of a canopy to create additional sales area,

reconfiguration of parking and access, erection of new front porch following demolition of existing and erection of 2.4 metre high boundary fencing. Along with alterations to the external appearance of the existing buildings.

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mrs Erica McDonald

Nottcutts Limited OFFICER: Gill Hillage

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 This application proposes amendments to a previous permission which approved a reconfiguration of Notcutts garden centre on a reduced site area necessitated by the residential development of the adjoining former nursery land. The previous permission (07/0702) related to both the residential development and the reconfigured garden centre together with new access proposals.

1.2 Certain material changes are now proposed to the approved garden centre scheme, including alterations to the parking layout and number of spaces, external cladding of the existing buildings, alterations to entrance doors together with new entrance porch, the erection of a canopy roof over an external sales area, and details of hard landscaping and fencing.

1.3 Given the principle of the reconfigured garden centre is established by the previous permission, and the use of the garden centre and the range of goods that can be sold is controlled by an existing legal agreement, the main issues to be considered relate to the principle of the alterations now proposed and whether they would impact detrimentally on the character and appearance of the countryside and local area.

1.4 The report concludes that the proposed alterations are acceptable in principle and that the unenclosed roof covering over the open sales area would not impact detrimentally on the openness, character and appearance of the countryside.

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. 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 full details of soft landscaping works have

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved, and implemented prior to first occupation.

41

Reason: To preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality and the countryside in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies RE3 Countryside beyond the green belt and G23 Green Corridors.

3. The approved roofed external sales area shall remain open sided and shall not be

enclosed by walls. Reason: In the interests of maintaining the openness and character of the countryside and the visual amenities of the area and to accord with the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved), Policy RE3 countryside beyond the green belt.

4. The display and sale of goods from the external sales area shall be restricted to

plants, pots, compost, fencing, trellis, landscape materials, pet accessories, wheelbarrows, incinerators and other ancillary garden equipment in connection with the main use of the site as a garden centre, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To retain control of the range of goods sold in the interests of protecting nearby retail centres and to accord with the objective of Policy S1 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

5. No new development shall be occupied until parking spaces have been laid out in

accordance with the approved drawing (GBG.07.0510-01 Rev A) and space for vehicles to turn so as to enter and exit the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be used and retained exclusively for its designated purpose. Reason: In order not to prejudice highway safety or cause inconvenience to other highway users and to accord with Policy M7 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved).

6. The proposed development shall be built in accordance with the following

approved plans: 32-1542-25, GBG.07.0510-01 Rev A, GBG.07.0610-4, GBG.07.0610-01 and C372/112, 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).

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the openness of the

Countryside beyond the Green Belt. 2. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the rural character or visual

amenities of the area. Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant

of planning permission

Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policy RE3: Countryside beyond the Green Belt .

42

Informative(s)

1. The applicant is advised that this permission should be read in conjunction with the section 106 legal agreement attached to permission 07/0702, which relates to this site.

2. The applicant is advised that this permission does not convey consent for surface

water drainage details. This permission should be read in conjunction with permission 07/0702 with respect to the surface water drainage details of the site.

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Consultation responses

3.2 Previous decisions referred to in relevant history.

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 This 1.575 ha site is located on the south side of Jenkins Hill, London Road. It accommodates Notcutts Garden Centre, which comprises a range of buildings and car parking areas.

4.2 The former associated nursery land to the west and east is currently being developed for 182 dwellings and a public open space (SANGS). There are residential properties on the opposite side of Jenkins Hill.

4.3 Vehicular access to the site from the London Road is currently being altered in association with the adjoining residential development. Access to the garden centre will be obtained from a new roundabout, which is currently being built on the access road to serve the new housing development.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 07/0702 Permission was granted for the erection of 182 dwellings, change of use of nursery land to public open space, associated access and highway works and retention of existing garden centre with amended parking layout and external sales area. This development is under construction.

5.2 10/0704 Advertisement consent was granted for the erection of 6 non illuminated signs to be affixed to the garden centre buildings.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The principle of a re-arranged garden centre and amended parking area following demolition of a large black barn building, was approved as part of the overall permission for the adjoining residential redevelopment (07/0702). This permission allows for the creation of two areas of car parking served off a single spur from the site roundabout. Further material amendments are now proposed to the approved scheme. The amendments are submitted together with the previously approved scheme, and these include additional car parking spaces added to the western rear car park to give a total of 233 spaces, the relocation of 2 spaces for disabled drivers and the erection of a new entrance porch, the

43

erection of a canopy over the external sales area, new entrance gates, boundary fencing, and external cladding to the buildings. Hard and soft landscaping details are also included in this application.

6.2 The fencing would comprise 2.4m high mesh and 2m high chain link fencing bordering the new public open space (SANGS) to the western side of the site and 2m high chain link fencing around the rear car park area bordering the SANGS. A 1m high bar gate would be erected at the access to the car park and a new entrance porch would be erected to the southern corner of the building. A new triple bay domed open sided canopy (glass and steel profile sheeting) would be erected over the external sales area (1015 sq m) to a maximum height of approximately 6.6m and a uniform external cladding (steel profile sheeting - green) would be added to the existing buildings. An existing black barn ( 757 sq m) which was previously used for storage purposes has recently been removed.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway Authority

Raises no objection.

7.2 Windlesham Parish Council

Raises no objection

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report no representations have been received.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The garden centre is located in the countryside beyond the green belt and the London Road is designated as a green corridor in the Local Plan. Policies RE3 (countryside beyond the green belt) and G23 (green corridors) are most applicable to the consideration of this application. The principle of the reconfigured garden centre is established by the previous permission 07/0702, which is now part implemented and as such it is only the amendments to the previously approved garden centre scheme that require consideration.

9.2 The main issues to be addressed are:

whether the proposed amendments to the approved garden centre scheme are acceptable in principle, and

the impact of the proposed amendments on the character and appearance of the area and the countryside.

9.3 Whether the proposed amendments to the approved garden centre scheme are acceptable in principle.

9.4 The submitted design and access statement advises that the garden centre site, including car parking, servicing and retail area currently operates on approximately 2.888 ha. This will be reduced by almost half (1.575 ha) as a consequence of the approved residential scheme (07/0702). A more intensive use of the site is therefore required in order to ensure that turnover does not decline. In order to maximise the space available, some

44

reconfiguration of the service area is proposed which releases further space for some additional car parking. The existing garden centre has 240 spaces and the previous permission showed 177spaces. Following reconfiguration a total of 233 spaces are now proposed. Amendments to entrances and relocation of 2 spaces for disabled drivers are also proposed to improve customer access. These changes are considered to be acceptable in principle.

9.5 The applicant advises that the garden centre has developed piecemeal from the 1960s and the opportunity now exists to upgrade the external elevations of the buildings and provide a uniform, more attractive appearance. The proposed canopy roof over the external sales area is required to protect both customers and stock from inclement weather. The retail sales of the garden centre is currently controlled by a 106 legal agreement attached to 07/0702 which restricts the range of goods that can be sold. This agreement will continue to apply to the current proposal. The applicant advises that it is intended to utilise this previously approved open sales area for the selling of plants and garden sundries. The applicant has agreed to the imposition of a condition to limit the type of goods sold in the covered external area to include plants, pots, compost, fencing, trellis, landscape materials, pet accessories, wheelbarrows, incinerators and other ancillary garden equipment. Given that the site is located in the countryside beyond the green belt Policy RE3 requires that development preserves the openness and character of the countryside. The site is on the edge of the countryside adjoining a new residential development and the canopy would be surrounded by existing buildings on three sides. It would be open sided and constructed in a light structure which would help to retain the open appearance of this space. In addition, the removal of a large black barn from the site has brought benefit to the openness of the countryside. It is considered that provided this structure remains open sided, the principle of roofing this courtyard external sales area, is acceptable. In the event that permission is granted, a condition to ensure the area remains open sided and remains as external retail space only, is recommended. The impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area is discussed below.

9.6 The impact of the proposed amendments on the character and appearance of the area.

9.7 The site is located in the countryside beyond the green belt and the London Road is a designated green corridor. Policy RE3 requires development to respect the character and appearance of the countryside and Policy G23 seeks to ensure that the landscape character of the green corridor is preserved.

9.8 The proposed cladding of the buildings in green profile sheeting will give rise to a uniform and upgraded appearance to the existing mix of buildings and is considered to be in keeping with the location and the use.

9.9 The new perimeters of the site will be established in part with Euroguard fencing 2.4m in height and in part with 2m high chain link fencing. The applicant advises that lower fences have not proven over time to be an effective security barrier and the proposed fencing is visually lightweight but robust. The 2.4m high mesh fencing will be erected between the garden centre buildings and the adjoining SANGS and the 2m high chain link fencing will be erected between the car parking areas and the SANGS. Planted soft landscaping strips will be provided between the fencing and car parking areas to help soften the boundaries. The boundary adjoining the London Road and down to the new internal roundabout are currently under consideration as part of the details submitted pursuant to the original permission (07/0702). The soft planting around the margins of the site will help to minimise any impact on the green corridor and countryside location.

9.10 The canopy roof will comprise a lightweight open structure, constructed in three bays consisting of galvanised steel frame and a roofing material clad in white opal. This material has been chosen to provide the correct lighting environment for plant protection and welfare, it will also help to reduce the bulk and appearance of the roof and lessen its

45

overall impact on the character and appearance of the countryside and the local area. Furthermore, the approved rationalisation of the garden centre which included the removal of a large black barn building. The removal of this bulky building (757 sq m) has brought about considerable benefit visually to the character and appearance of the countryside and the open sided canopy which would be more closely related to the retained buildings is therefore considered to be justified in this case..

9.11 In conclusion, the amendments are not considered likely to give rise to detriment to the character and appearance of the countryside or green corridor.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 The amendments proposed to the previously approved reconfiguration of the existing garden centre are considered to be acceptable in principle and not likely to impact detrimentally on the character and appearance of the countryside. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

46

05 2010/0684 Reg Date 28/10/2010 Chobham LOCATION: WENTWORTH PLACE, CHESTNUT LANE, CHOBHAM,

WOKING, GU24 8TN PROPOSAL: Change of Use of existing stable block to ancillary residential

accommodation to include a single storey infill extension to existing stable block.

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Heidrun Trust OFFICER: Stephen Andrews

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing disused stable block to ancillary residential accommodation, to be used by Wentworth Place. The proposal would involve a glazed area being constructed over the existing open courtyard element formed by the u-shaped stable buildings.

1.2 The main issues in consideration of this application are:

whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm;

impact on the character and appearance of the area;

impact on residential amenity;

impact on parking and highway safety; and

impact on protected species.

1.3 The report concludes that the development would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Further the proposal would not adversely impact upon the rural character of the area or the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety of protected species. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

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. 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. 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 H17 House Extensions of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED).

47

3. The development, hereby approved, shall be implemented in accordance with the

requirements of the submitted 'Wildlife Protection and Mitigation Plan'. Any deviation from the requirements of this report must be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the changes being undertaken. Reason: To ensure the protection of protected species in accordance with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) Policy RE12 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no further extensions, garages or other buildings shall be erected without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargement, improvement or other alterations to the development in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to accord with Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED), Policies RE5 Extensions, Alterations and Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside, H17 House Extensions and PPG 2 “Green Belts”.

5. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

approved plans unless the prior written approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning and as advised in CLG Guidance on “Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions” (2009).

Summary of reasons for the grant of planning permission

1. The proposal would not adversely impact upon the openness of the Green Belt

and the rural character of the area and is considered to accord with the Development Plan.

2. The proposal would not adversely affect the amenities of adjoining residents or

result in significant loss of natural screening. Summary of policies and proposals in the Development Plan relevant to the grant

of planning permission

1. Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED) Policies RE2: Development Within the Green Belt, RE6: Re-Use and Adaption of Rural Buildings, RE12: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance and H17: House Extensions.

2. PPG2: Green Belts 3. PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 4. PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Informative(s)

1. Decision Notice to be kept DS1

2. Building Regs consent req'd DF5

48

3.0 BACKGROUND PAPERS

3.1 Planning history

3.2 Consultation responses and letters of representation

4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

4.1 Wentworth Place is a large Estate House positioned on a hill and located within some 21 hectares of grounds. The ground level slopes downwards from all sides of the building towards woodland to the west and garden areas to the front and rear. The property is accessed via a private driveway off Chestnut Lane which is some 140m away.

4.2 The application site however forms a disused stable block within the Wentworth Place Estate. The stable block is a single storey u-shaped building of brick and plain tile construction with central courtyard. There is a tennis court immediately to the north of the stables and parking area and garaging some 65m to the west. The parking area benefits from its own vehicular access onto Chestnut Lane, which is some 80m away.

4.3 The site is located to the south of Chestnut Lane, within designated Green Belt, to the north of Chobham. There is a disused garden nursery to the east, Chobham Place Woods immediately to the north and open fields and sporadically located dwellings to the south and west.

4.4 Wentworth Place was previously a Grade II listed building, but was de-listed on 27th October 2005.

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 There is substantial planning history for this site, including various alterations to the residential property but none are relevant to the consideration of this application.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 Planning permission is sought for the change of use of an existing disused stable block to ancillary residential accommodation, to be used by Wentworth Place.

6.2 The proposal would involve a glazed area being constructed over the existing open courtyard element formed by the u-shaped stable buildings.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 Surrey County Highway Authority

No objection.

7.2 Surrey Wildlife Trust Awaited. Any response will be reported orally at committee.

7.3 Chobham Parish Council

Comment. The accommodation must remain ancillary to the main dwelling.

49

8.0 REPRESENTATION

At the time of preparation of this report two letters of support had been received with no additional commentary.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 Principles of Development

9.1.1 The application has been screened in accordance with the Habitat Regulations 2010. Having regard to the location of the site, the nature of the proposal and the relationship of the site to the SPA/SAC, Officers are of the view that the proposal would not have a significant effect on the protected area. As such an Appropriate Assessment is not required.

9.1.2 This application is considered against the principles of all general policies and Policies RE2: Development Within the Green Belt, RE6: Re-Use and Adaption of Rural Buildings and Policy RE12: Sites of Nature Conservation Importance of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (AS SAVED). In addition consideration will be given to PPG2: Green Belts, PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

9.1.3 The main issues in consideration of this application are:

whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm;

impact on the character and appearance of the area;

impact on residential amenity;

impact on parking and highway safety; and

impact on protected species.

9.2 Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so whether there are any very special circumstances to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm

9.2.1 Paragraph 3.4 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 “Green Belts” states that the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for the following purposes:

agriculture and forestry;

essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it;

limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings;

limited infilling in existing villages and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according with PPS3; or

limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex C

50

9.2.2 Paragraph 3.6 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 “Green Belts” goes on to state that "Provided that it does not result in a disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts."

9.2.3 Local Plan policies RE2 and RE6 provide a local context for the proposed conversion of the disused stable block to ancillary residential accommodation in association with Wentworth Place. When considering the suitability of the building for conversion regard must be given to its current state and the proposed use.

9.2.4 The planning application included a structural survey which suitably demonstrates that the disused stable block is structurally sound and capable of conversion. Following the officer site visit this view is agreed with.

9.2.5 The stable block is located adjacent to an existing tennis court and the plans indicate that the building will be used for recreational purposes that would be compatible with the tennis court. It is therefore considered that the principle of converting the stable block to ancillary accommodation in association with Wentworth Place is appropriate development within the Green Belt.

9.2.6 The submitted plans show that the existing stable building would be modified in accordance with the proposed use. The development would involve the provision of additional glazing and a glazed area to the rear of the building over the open central part of the u-shaped building. Whilst Local Plan Policy RE6, part (b) seeks to prevent the further extension or need for external storage for buildings to be converted it is considered that as the additional element would be primarily glazed this would be an appropriate way of facilitating the conversion of the building whilst maintaining openness.

9.2.7 It is therefore considered that the conversion of the disused stable block to ancillary accommodation, in association with Wentworth Place, is appropriate development in the Green Belt. Further the provision of the rear glazed extension should not be a reason to withhold planning permission on Green Belt grounds.

9.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area

9.3.1 The application site is some 80m from the public domain and is not therefore readily visible, if it all. In addition the proposed conversion with glazed addition is not considered to materially alter the existing appearance of the stable buildings. It is therefore considered that the development as proposed would not adversely affect the rural character of the area within the designated Green Belt.

9.4 Impact on Residential Amenity

9.4.1 The nearest residential property is Home Farm House some 400m from the application site. It is therefore considered that the change of use from stables to ancillary residential accommodation in association with Wentworth Place would have no impact on residential amenity.

9.5 Impact on parking and highway safety

9.5.1 The existing parking and access arrangements for the site would remain unaltered as a result of the development. The County Highways Authority has raised no objection to the proposal.

9.6 Impact on protected species

9.6.1 PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation requires planning authorities to refuse planning permission where there are overall negative impacts on fully protected ecological features (those covered by the Conservation Regulations, the Wildlife and Countryside Act

51

and the Protection of Badgers Act). PPS 9 (reinforced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act) also expects planning authorities to consider the impacts of their decision upon other ecological features without full legal protection but that are nonetheless considered important to society. These are generally referred to as Biodiversity Action Plan habitats/species. PPS9 also asks planning authorities to seek opportunities for ecological improvements (BAP-lead) in the decision-making process.

9.6.2 Having regard to the nature of the stable building and its immediate surroundings the applicant has submitted a wildlife protection and mitigation plan. The report includes details of the survey work undertaken for the site, along with the results and proposed mitigation measures to account for the presence and impact of protected species, namely brown long-eared and common pipistrelle bats.

9.6.3 Whilst the Surrey Wildlife Trust has not yet responded it is anticipated that the mitigation measures proposed in the submitted report will be agreed and should be secured by planning condition. If the Surrey Wildlife Trust does provide a response members of the planning applications committee will be updated accordingly.

9.6.4 In respect of the above information it is considered that the applicant has adequately identified the impact of the development on protected species and has suggested suitable mitigation measures to account for that impact. It is therefore considered that the proposal has sufficient regard to the aims and objectives of PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation and Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Ecological Conservation. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal in respect of protected species.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 Having regard to the above information it is not considered that the development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Further the proposal would not adversely impact upon the rural character of the area or the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety or protected species. The application is therefore recommended for approval.

52

06 2010/0852 Reg Date 02/11/2010 St. Michaels LOCATION: 11 FRIMLEY ROAD, CAMBERLEY, GU15 3EN PROPOSAL: Change of Use of ground floor from retail unit (Class A1) to a

mixed use incorporating a residential one bedroom flat (Class C3) to the rear and retail use (Class A1) to the front.

TYPE: Full Planning Application APPLICANT: Mr James Norris

Norris Property Holdings Ltd OFFICER: Paul Sherman

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The full application proposes the change of use of ground floor of the building from A1 (retail) to a mixed use comprising A1 (retail) and C3 (residential) uses. The application proposes that the existing unit would be subdivided so that the rear half of the ground floor would be converted to provide a single bed-sit flat, whilst the front half of the premises and the existing basement would be retained in retail use.

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

The impact of the development on the Local Shopping Centre and the Employment Revitalisation Area

The impact of the development on residential amenities

The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

The environmental sustainability of the proposed development

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

The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

1.3 The report concludes that whilst the development would not adversely impact on the Local Shopping Centre or the Employment Revitalisation Area the residential unit proposed would suffer from poor living conditions and would not provide a level of residential amenity that future occupants could reasonable expect to enjoy. In addition, without the appropriate mechanisms to secure mitigation, the development proposed, in combination with other development, would have a significant adverse impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and would have an adverse impact on local infrastructure provision.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

REFUSE for the following reason(s):-

1. The proposed residential unit by reason of its restricted size, poor layout and a lack of direct windows to habitable areas, together with a lack of privacy due to the proximity of the staircase serving the upper flat, would result in an overly cramped and sub-standard residential dwelling, that would give rise to a poor living environment, to the detriment of the future occupiers of this property. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policies H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy H5 of the South East Plan 2009 and conflicts with the national guidance contained in PPS1 and PPS3.

53

2. The lack of windows to habitable areas and single north east aspect would result

in a lack of natural light, heat and ventilation to the property and result in the dwelling being over reliant on artificial and unsustainable resources. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policies G9 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies CC3, CC4 and H5 of the South East Plan 2009 and conflicts with national guidance contained in PPS1 and PPS3.

3. The Planning Authority, following an Appropriate Assessment and in the light of

available information and the representations of Natural England, is unable to satisfy itself that the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use and damage to the habitat and the protection of protected species within the protected areas. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (The Habitat Regulations) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the 2010 Regulations and Article 6 (3) of Directive 92/43/EE. For the same reasons the proposal conflicts with guidance contained in Planning Policy Statement 9 (Biodiversity and Geological Conservation).

4. 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 G3 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 in relation to the provision of infrastructure contributions towards, transport, libraries, environmental improvements, community facilities and recycling, in accordance with the requirements of Surrey Heath Borough Councils ‘Planning Infrastructure Contributions’ Scheme.

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 east side of Frimley Road, close to its junction with the London Road (A30). The application site forms the ground floor of a two-storey mid-terrace building which currently comprises a retail unit on the ground floor with a residential unit above.

4.2 The application site is adjoined on both sides by other commercial units within the parade. The rear of the site adjoins 1 York Terrace Lane while the front boundary is marked by the public highway. Pedestrian access to the site can be gained from Frimley Road or to the rear via Chapel Road however there is no direct vehicle access to the site and there is therefore no off street car parking provision on the site.

54

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

5.1 SU/2003/0578 Change of use of ground floor from A1 (Retail) to A3 (Hot food and drink) and erection of ventilation chimney.

Approved (14/01/2004)

5.2 SU/2004/0115 Change of use from shop A1 (retail) to A2 (internet letting agency).

Approved (09/03/2004)

5.3 SU/2009/0761 Change of Use of ground floor A1 retail unit to a mixed use incorporating a C3 residential one bedroom flat to the rear, and A1 retail use to the front of the unit with new window and door to the rear elevation.

Refused (17/12/2009) for the following reasons:

1. The proposed residential unit by reason of its restricted size, poor layout and a lack of windows to a habitable room, together with a lack of privacy to the bedroom and kitchen due to the proximity of the staircase serving the upper flat, would result in an overly cramped and sub-standard residential dwelling, that would give rise to a poor living environment, to the detriment of the future occupiers of this property. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policies H18 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy H5 of the South East Plan 2009 and conflicts with the national guidance contained in PPS1 and PPS3.

2. The lack of windows to a habitable room and single north-east aspect would result in a lack of natural light, heat and ventilation to the property and result in the dwelling being over reliant on artificial and unsustainable resources. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the objectives of policies G9, of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and policies CC3, CC4 and H5 of the South East Plan 2009 and conflicts with national guidance contained in PPS1 and PPS3.

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

4. 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 G3 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) and Policy CC7 of the South East Plan 2009 in relation to the provision of

55

infrastructure contributions towards, transport, libraries, community facilities and recycling, in accordance with the requirements of Surrey Heath Borough Councils ‘Planning Infrastructure Contributions’ Scheme.

6.0 THE PROPOSAL

6.1 The full application proposes the change of use of ground floor of the building from A1 (retail) to a mixed use comprising A1 (retail) and C3 (residential) uses. The application proposes that the existing unit would be subdivided so that the rear half of the ground floor would be converted to provide a single bed-sit with the front half and the existing basement retained in retail use.

6.2 The residential unit proposed would comprise a ‘studio’ flat with the main habitable accommodation provided in a single room including bedroom, lounge kitchen areas. A w.c and a shower room would be provided in a separate room. The property would be single aspect and would be served by windows and doors in the rear elevation only, with the entire rear wall of the building converted to glazing. Access to the proposed residential unit would be from the rear of the site via the existing rear servicing area which serves the units fronting Frimley Road. The retail unit would be access from Frimley Road. There would be no vehicle access or serving areas on the site for either of the uses.

6.3 The application is similar to application SU/2009/0761 which also sought a mixed use of the ground floor for retail and residential uses. The principle changes from this previously application relate to an amended internal layout and changes to the fenestration in the rear elevation.

7.0 CONSULTATION RESPONSES

7.1 County Highway Authority

No objection to the development proposed.

8.0 REPRESENTATION

8.1 At the time of the preparation of this report 1 letter of support had been received.

9.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATION

9.1 The application site is located within the settlement area as identified by the proposal map of the Local Plan and is also identified as a Local Shopping Centre and an Employment Revitalisation Area. The site is also identified to provide rear servicing as part of any redevelopment of the local area. Accordingly policies G4, G9, H18, H19, H23, E6, S5, M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) policies CC3, CC4, H5 and NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 are relevant to the consideration of this application. The national guidance contained in PPS1, PPS3 and PPS9 is also relevant.

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

The impact of the development on the Local Shopping Centre and the Employment Revitalisation Area

The impact of the development on residential amenities

56

The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

The environmental sustainability of the proposed development

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

The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

9.3 The impact of the development on the Local Shopping Centre and the Employment Revitalisation Area

9.3.1 The application site currently comprises an A1 retail unit and is located within an identified Local Shopping Centre. Policy S5 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 (as saved) advises that within these areas development which results in the loss of retail units will be generally resisted. In this instance, although the proposed development would result in the loss of retail floor space, a retail unit is to be retained on the site. The applicant advises that despite marketing the property for an extended period of time, they have not been able to let the existing unit and now consider that a unit of reduced size would be more desirable. Whilst the Council have no evidence to support or refute this claim it is considered that the remaining retail unit would continue to serve as a viable retail unit and would be capable of contributing to the function of the Local Shopping Parade. Accordingly no objection should be raised to the loss of this element of retail floor space.

9.3.2 The application site is located within an Employment Revitalisation Area as identified by the proposal map of the local plan. Within these areas Policy E6 advises that the Council will support the comprehensive redevelopment of the area and proposals for piecemeal development will be considered against the objectives of achieving a comprehensive scheme. The development proposed does not form part of a comprehensive scheme for the area however it would not prejudice any comprehensive development of the area should a scheme come forward at a later time. Again no objection should be raised to the proposal on these grounds.

9.4 The impact of the development on residential amenities

9.4.1 The application site is located within a parade of commercial properties, most of which include residential units at the first floor. This includes residential units above both adjoining properties and on the first floor of the applicants building. The development includes a change of use of part of the ground floor of the building however no extension of the building is proposed. The development is therefore not likely to materially impact on the amenities the occupants of the surrounding properties currently enjoy.

9.4.2 In addition to the amenities of adjoining properties it is appropriate to consider the amenities that the future occupants of the development would enjoy and PPS3 places significant emphasis on creating well designed housing which would meet the needs for future occupants. In this case it is noted that the proposed residential unit would be single aspect and would be served by windows in the rear north-eastern elevation only. The proposed bedroom area, which is a primary habitable room, would not have any direct natural light and would rely on light available thought the kitchen/dining room area. The windows face on to a shared amenity space and, by virtue of a change in levels of the land and the north-eastern aspect, would receive little day or sun light to the main habitable areas and would provide a poor outlook for the future occupants of the development. The proposed shared garden amenity space at the rear would incorporate the only means of access to the proposed flat and the existing 1st floor for both the occupiers of these flats and their visitors. This access would prevent the proper use of this amenity space as private amenity area, adding to the poor form of the proposed development. Moreover the positioning of the external staircase, and its regular use by the occupants of the first floor property, would result in people passing close to the main habitable areas of the proposed flat. The

57

residential unit proposed would therefore suffer from a lack of daylight and sunlight, would have a poor outlook, poor amenity space and would benefit from little privacy.

9.4.3 The residential unit proposed would also be extremely small providing for a total internal floor space of just 38m². Whilst the Council does not have adopted space standards for residential units it is appropriate to consider if the development would create a space which meets the needs of the potential future occupants. English Partnerships policy guidance document ‘Places, Homes, People’ 2007, advises that a one-bedroom property should have a minimum area 51m² and advises against the provision of studio flats in general. The guidance also advises that homes should be dual aspect to allow cross ventilation and homes which only face north are not acceptable. Whilst this guidance is not formally adopted it further demonstrates that the residential unit proposed would provide a poor standard of residential accommodation which would not meet the requirements of the future occupants.

9.4.4 It is therefore considered the development proposed would fail to provide a satisfactory residential environment for the future occupants in that it would suffer from a poor outlook, would benefit from little natural light or ventilation, would provide little privacy and would provide a below adequate level of internal space. Accordingly the development conflicts with the objectives of Policy H18 and would be contrary with the guidance contained in PPS1 and PPS3.

9.5 The level of parking and the impact on highway safety

9.5.1 The application site does not currently benefit from a vehicle access, whilst pedestrian access is available from the Frimley Road at the front and via a servicing area at the rear. Given no alterations to the access or serving arrangements are proposed, the County Highway Authority advises that there is no objection to the development on highway safety, policy or capacity grounds.

9.5.2 There is currently no off street car parking provided to serve the retail unit although there is a public car park in close proximity to the site. No off street car parking is proposed however it is not considered that the development would give rise to a significant increase in the demand for car parking at the site. Whilst there is also no parking to serve the residential unit it is noted that this is not an uncommon feature of residential units in commercial areas and no objection should be raised on these grounds.

9.6 The environmental sustainability of the proposed development

9.6.1 PPS3, as well as policies CC3 and CC4 of the South East Plan 2009, advise that new development should be designed so that it is environmentally sustainable and minimises the use of natural recourses. This should included designed developments so that they make the best use of natural lighting, heat, and ventilation. The residential unit proposed would be single aspect and would include only north-east facing windows. As a result the unit would benefit from little natural light or solar gain. The development would therefore be overly reliant on artificial lighting and heating and would conflict with the objectives of the development plan which seeks to reduce the reliance on such measures.

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

9.7.1 The application site is located within approximately 1.2km 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 1 unit and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on the protected site.

58

9.7.2 On the 29th August 2008 the Council adopted ‘The Special Protection Area – Interim Avoidance Strategy’ which identifies Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough and advises that the impact of residential developments of less than 10 dwellings (net) at a distance of between 400m and 5km of the SPA can be mitigated by providing a financial contribution towards SANGS. No mechanism to secure the mitigation has been provided and as such, following an Appropriate Assessment and in light of the information available, it is not possible to conclude that the development would not have a significant adverse impact on the SPA.

9.8 The impact of the development on local infrastructure provision

9.8.1 On the 1st February 2009 the Council adopted the Surrey Tariff Scheme for the purpose of securing developer contributions towards a range of infrastructure. Contributions are now required for any development providing new dwellings or commercial floorspace; levels of contributions have been drawn from work carried out be the Surrey Collaboration Project and the amount payable will be dependent on the scale of the development and its location.

9.8.2 In this instance the development proposed requires a total contribution of £635.03 which will be put towards transport, libraries, environmental improvements, community facilities and recycling, and will ensure the infrastructure impact of the development is mitigated. At the time of the preparation of this report the applicant had not provided an obligation to secure this contribution and as such the proposed development would not mitigate its impact on local infrastructure provision.

10.0 CONCLUSION

10.1 Whilst the proposal would not conflict with objectives of the designated Local Shopping Centre or the Employment Revitalisation Area, the proposed residential unit created would be overly cramped, would suffer from a poor outlook, would receive little sunlight or daylight to the primary areas of accommodation, would be poorly ventilated and would suffer from a lack of privacy by virtue of the access to the first floor residential unit. As such the resulting living conditions would not meet the future occupiers reasonable expectations and would not provide a level of residential amenity these occupiers may reasonable expect to enjoy. Moreover the lack of natural light, heat and ventilation to the property would result in a dwelling which would be over reliant on artificial and unsustainable resources.

10.2 In addition, without the appropriate mechanisms to secure suitable mitigation the development proposed, in combination with other development, would have a significant adverse impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and would have an adverse impact on local infrastructure provision.