REPORT PROFORMA - Tandridge...

of 2

REPORT PROFORMA Status CPO

Application No: 2016/1612 Date of Committee N/A

Decision Code: RR Expiry indicator N/A

Constraints: URB, AWOOD, TPO 21/C&W, X Road, Wooded Hillside, Rail Track within 30m, Public Footpath No. 58.

Listed Building N Grade N/A Comments Y

Site Area 0.9 Ha No. Parking Spaces Res. Parking Average

% reduction in CO2 KwH produced from renewables

Housing

Existing use

Res. Net Density

Number of units Gross Demolished Net gain

Number of affordable units Social Rented

Intermediate

Housing detail

No. of units No. of beds Flat/House

Land type

Brownfield / Greenfield

Windfall / Allocation

Code for sustainable homes

Level Lifetime Homes

Standard

All relevant criteria met

Has the new development provided an infrastructure/service provision or

a financial contribution Yes/No

Commercial 50sqm or greater

Previous use class 1 Floorspace m2



Proposed use class 1 Floorspace m2



Hotels

No. of bed

spaces

Has the new development provided an infrastructure/service provision or a financial contribution

Yes/No

Added Value

of 6

Application No: 2016/1612 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Summary The proposal is for the demolition of four existing dwellings and erection of five blocks containing 24 flats. The key issue is whether there are any material differences in the current proposal to the previous scheme and whether there have been any changes in the relevant planning policies or other material considerations that would lead the Council to reach a different conclusion. The key issues are also whether the proposal would be appropriate with regard to the impact on the character of the site, impact on the adjoining properties, highways, renewable energy, protected species and affordable housing. The proposal would fail to respect and reflect the character and appearance of the site; its setting and local context. It would detract from the amenities of the local area and the future occupiers of the proposed development. It has not demonstrated that the development would not have a harmful impact on important/protected species. The proposal does not contain a mechanism to secure the required affordable housing provision. Site Description The site is a parcel of land on the eastern side of Southview Road, Warlingham, occupied by four detached dwellings Nos. 12-18. The land slopes downwards from east to west and south to north from the hillside of Warlingham into the valley of Whyteleafe. The road is a private ‘X’ classified road and abuts the railway line to the west. The hillside is wooded and the site is subject to an area Tree Preservation Order. In this part of Southview Road the area is characterised by detached dwellings set in spacious plots. The dwellings numbered 12-20 are two storey chalet bungalow style; part of one comprehensive development. The remaining two dwellings numbered 22 and 24 are of two different designs/styles. There is a variety of development in the wider area including; detached two storey dwellings and some flatted development. It is noted that the application site is located within an urban area, although this particular part of the locality is low density and has a spacious and sylvan character. Relevant History and Key Issues 2014/1343 – Demolition of four existing dwellings and erection of four dwellings was approved on 02.02.15. This is currently an extant permission that could be implemented. 2015/655 – Demolition of four existing dwellings and erection of five dwellings was approved on 23.06.15. This is currently an extant permission that could be implemented. 2015/1517 – Outline planning permission was refused for the access, layout and scale for demolition of four existing and erection of 5x 4-storey blocks containing 36 flats with appearance and landscaping being reserved matters on 18.02.16. The applicant has appealed against the Council’s decision however this has not yet been determined by the Planning Inspectorate. The key issue is whether there has been a material change in the Development Plan Policies, the application site, its setting or in the proposal since the previous decision(s) that would lead the Council to reach a different conclusion. The site lies within the urban area and Category 1 Settlement of Caterham where development is

of 6

intended to take place in order to promote sustainable patterns of travel and to make the best use of previously developed land. Therefore the key issue is also therefore whether the proposal would be appropriate with regard to the impact on the character of the site, the impact on the street scene and the impact on the adjoining properties. Proposal Outline planning permission is sought for the access, layout and scale for demolition of four existing and erection of 5x 4-storey blocks containing 24 flats, along with associated access, parking, amenity space and landscaping, with the appearance and landscaping being reserved matters. The proposal consists of: Block 1 – Type A 7x Affordable units Block 2 – Type B 5x Private units Block 3 – Type C 4x Private units Block 4 – Type C 4x Private units Block 5 – Type C 4x Private units Development Plan Policy Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 – Policies CSP1, CSP2, CSP3, CSP4, CSP7, CSP11, CSP12, CSP14, CSP15, CSP17, CSP18, CSP19 Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014 – Policies DP1, DP5, DP7, DP8, DP19, DP21 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs), Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPGs) and non-statutory guidance Tandridge Parking Standards SPD (2012) Surrey Design Guide (2002) National Advice National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) Statutory Consultation Responses County Highway Authority – The County Highway Authority notes the development affects the following private road, Southview Road (X35190), over which the Highway Authority have no jurisdiction. The Highway Authority have assessed the proposals and consider that they will not have an impact at the point where this private road meets the highway network, and/or on the surrounding highway network, and this is reflected in the above advice. However, part of Well Farm Road forms a Town Path over which the Highway Authority does have jurisdiction and given the number of movements required by HGV and larger vehicles through this section, the narrowness of the carriageway and visibility issues at the intersection of Well Farm Road and Southview Road, prior to any planning permission being granted, the developer is advised to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the owners of the land on which the Town Path is located in order to secure private vehicular right of access through the tunnel, and

of 6

thereby negotiate terms prior to commencing development. A written copy of which should be sent to the Local Planning Authority. Note to the Local Planning Authority: The CHA has undertaken a site visit in order to make a full assessment. The proposed application affects Southview Road, a private road, as such it is appropriate for the County Highway Authority to assess the application in terms of the impact it may have upon the junction of Well Farm Road (X35190) and the A22 (Godstone Road) were planning permission to be granted. Well Farm Road is a public highway which connects to Public Footpath 58, via the tunnel of the Tuzos Railway Bridge. The public highway terminates prior to entering the railway tunnel, where it switches over to the Town Path. Southview Road is a private road which connects at the T junction. A previous application (TA/2015/1517) at the site for 36 residential units raised similar issues to the current application, in terms of intensification, access and impact upon Well Farm Road and the Tuzon Railway Bridge. The CHA considers that the slight reduction in number of units associated with the present application would still have the same implications on the immediate area as the previous application and has based the response to the current application on those criteria. Parking: In reviewing the application, the CHA has noted that the proposed development plans to provide parking for 36 vehicles and makes a note of the proposed bicycle storage sheds for a minimum of 48 bicycles. As a development of 24 one-two bedroom flats, the proposed development is recommended to provide a minimum of 36 unallocated parking spaces or 48 allocated parking spaces according to the Tandridge District Parking Standards SPD. However, the location of the site to three request bus stops (approximately 250m away) and the nearby Whyteleafe South Station (approx 450m) both fall within the acceptable parameters established under the 'Providing for Journeys on Foot' guidance (IHT, 2000). While there is no theoretical shortfall in parking spaces identified within the Transport Statement against the unallocated parking spaces of the Tandridge District Parking Standards SPD within the proposed development, there is also no provision for visitor parking to the site and the implication may be that visitors will park along Southview Road. Local residents have submitted concerns regarding the increase in on-street parking as a result of the proposed development and impact upon the local area. Given that Southview Road has no traffic regulation orders applicable, and no accidents recorded along its length; on-street parking is an amenity issue for Tandridge District Council to consider and not a road safety issue. Visibility: Well Farm Road is a priority junction with a left turn only exit onto the A22. Visibility in the trailing direction (left hand side) is currently limited by the temporary hoarding erected for a development however traffic flow to the south is only one lane, with a dedicated cycle lane on the nearside kerb. Visibility to the leading direction (right hand side) is excellent with vehicles being able to see oncoming traffic on the inside lane clearly within the recommended minimum visibility. The addition of the broken hatched marking between the cycle lane and the central reservation allows vehicles to pull to the side of the carriageway, when safe to do so, in order to turn left onto Well Farm Road. Vehicles approaching from the South have a dedicated right turn lane with good forward visibility of oncoming traffic and would be able to manoeuvre safely across the A22. There has been one slight accident recorded at the junction of Well Farm Road and the A22 relating to turning manoeuvres and that was caused by the turning vehicle being hit from behind. Trip Generation:

of 6

The proposed development if granted planning permission would be expected to generate a minimum of 72 trips per day (24 apartments x 1.5 vehicles per apartment x 2 trips per day). The average residential household generates between 5 - 7 movements per day; data presented within the Transport Statement by the client, based upon a TRICs analysis, indicates the proposed movements for this development would be in the region of 5.16 trips per day per household (generating 124 trips per day). This is in line with the expectations of the CHA and would have a negligible impact upon the A22 in itself. It is also worth mentioning that a neighbouring site along Well Farm Road has been granted previous planning permission for the development of 181 units. This development would provide access via Well Farm Road and lead to the intensification of the priority junction onto the A22. However, given the context of this previous permission, and the overall carrying capacity of the A22, it is not considered that that the combination of the two planning proposals would have a significant impact. Cumulative Impact: However, the CHA does have some concerns regarding the cumulative effect of transportation upon Well Farm Road. The Tuzos Railway Bridge (D1389/980) provides a natural pinch point at the upper end of Well Farm Road, at the junction of Southview Road. This section forms part of a Town path, over which established residents currently have private vehicular rights of access; but no pedestrian footways exist within the tunnel in order to facilitate pedestrian movement. The carriageway of Well Farm Road narrows to 3.46m at this junction, which is below the recommended width of carriageways for emergency vehicles. Visibility for vehicles entering the tunnel from Southview Road, turning left onto Well Farm Road, is reduced due to the structure of the railway bridge thereby increasing the risk of conflict with oncoming traffic and pedestrians. There are streetlights available approximately 30m to the southwest of the entrance to Tuzos Railway Bridge, and at the junction of Southview Road and Public Footpath 58; both are visible from the entrance/exit of the tunnel at either side. However, there is little opportunity outside of improving lighting within the tunnel to provide improvements for pedestrians as it would be unreasonable to request the applicant provide tunnel width improvements given the scale of the proposed development and the private nature of the road. Pedestrian Movement: There are concerns regarding the access for vulnerable pedestrians in and around the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Southview Road, at present, does not have any streetlights or footway links to the public section of Well Farm Road. Pedestrians wishing to access the development would need to walk through the Tuzos Railway Bridge tunnel on the carriageway; without any lighting or footway this could be potentially unsafe for vulnerable users. The public footway section of Well Farm Road is poorly maintained at present, but does have the benefit of streetlights on both sides of the highway. Public Footpath 58, which begins at the junction of Southview Road and Well Farm Road is accessed via a set of steps leading to the Jacobs Ladder which provides further access to West Hill Road (leading to Upper Warlingham Station) and Landscape Road; this footpath would be inaccessible to vulnerable users forcing them to use the Well Farm Road and A22 route. The applicant has proposed to provide a 1.2m wide pedestrian walkway, demarcated in a colour and outlined with a white line, on the southern side of the tunnel in order to link with the pedestrian footway along Well Farm Road. In addition, the proposal includes lighting within the tunnel. The CHA has consulted with the Road Safety Audit (RSA) team who does not agree with this proposal as it would potentially encourage vehicles and pedestrians to utilise the tunnel at the same time; the vehicles perhaps thinking that there is sufficient space for both uses. Instead, the RSA team has recommended that both 'priority to oncoming vehicles' and 'No footway for X yards' signs are installed on both sides of Tuzos Railway

of 6

Bridge; with the priority being given to southbound flowing traffic. The CHA has consulted with Countryside Access Teams and the Traffic Regulation Order team, who have both confirmed that as Well Farm Road is a Town Path, a TRO is not required in order to install the above mentioned signs. The CHA would request that the LPA include the signage conditions within any planning permission granted. Whilst there is some scope for the developer to provide pedestrian improvements in the form of lighting through the tunnel; the overall development onto a private road falls outside the County Highway Authority’s remit. If the planning officer feels it is necessary to secure improvements for sustainability reasons in order to facilitate granting planning permission, then the CHA recommends the applicant enter into an appropriate legal agreement between the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail, if required, in order to secure the above mentioned lighting improvements within the Tuzos Railway Bridge and advisory signage scheme. The CHA respectfully requests that the LPA consider the following conditions to be included within any planning permission granted: Warlingham Parish Council – Comments received

The reasons for refusal of 2015/1517 still apply; o Overdevelopment and inappropriate subdivision, dominated by car parking o Unsatisfactory living environment for future occupiers; through loss of

outlook, insufficient parking and poorly located bin stores,

Despite the reduction in units from 36 to 24 the scale and density does not reflect the pattern of development and would be out of keeping and contrary to the Warlingham Village Design Statement,

There would be insufficient parking causing overflow on to Southview Road; negating the removal of the previously proposed on-street bays, and indicating overdevelopment,

On-street parking would detract from the appearance of the area and cause a highway safety hazard,

The access under the railway tunnel would be a safety hazard, Whyteleafe Village Council – Comments received

The proposal would comprise overdevelopment out of character with the location,

There would be insufficient on-site parking,

The proposal would prejudice highway safety and should provide road layout, signage and safety improvements.

Lead Local Flood Authority – Comments received on 2015/1517 carried through The Government has strengthened planning policy on the provision of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for ‘major’ planning applications which is being introduced from 6 April 2015 (Paragraph 103 of National Planning Policy Framework and Ministerial Statement on SuDS). As per the guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), all ‘major’ planning applications being determined from 6 April 2015, must consider sustainable drainage systems. Developers are advised to assess the suitability of sustainable drainage systems in accordance with paragraphs 051, 079 and 080 of the revised NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) for Flood Risk and Coastal Change. Sustainable drainage systems should be designed in line with national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS. Hydraulic calculation and drawings to support the design need to be provided along with proposed standards of operation and maintenance in accordance with paragraph 081 of NPPF and PPG. We are satisfied that a viable method of dealing with surface water can be achieved which would not increase flood risk. Therefore, we have no objection to this outline application subject to submission of an appropriate detailed SuDS design following

of 6

approval. We would recommend that should planning permission be granted, that suitably worded conditions are applied to ensure that the SuDS Scheme is properly implemented and maintained throughout the lifetime of the development. Due to the topography of the site we would also suggest that the proposed refuse area and drainage channels at the site entrance/exits be designed to ensure no surface water flows off the site up to the 1 in 100 (+30%climate change) rainfall event. Non-statutory Advice Received Network Rail – Comments received on 2015/1517 carried through Comments received regarding requirements for the safe operation of the railway and protection of Network Rail land. After reviewing the information provided in relation to the above planning application and consultation received from the applicant I can confirm that Network Rail, in principal, has no objection to the proposed works. However, it must be noted that lighting should not be attached to the bridge without an attachment licence that can be obtained from our Asset Protection Team. Headroom measurements should also be taken into consideration and signage installed if required (moving the traffic away from the centreline of the arch theoretically increases the risk of a bridge strike). The applicant must contact Network Rail’s Asset Protection Team at [email protected] to agree an Asset Protection Agreement with us prior to the works taking place. More information can also be obtained from our website at www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1538.aspx. Surrey County Council Archaeological Officer – Comments received on 2015/1517 carried through. The comments in relation to a previous application for this site (2015/655) are still appropriate: the application will involve large scale ground disturbance (the application site is over the 0.4 hectare threshold recommended for archaeological investigation under Local Plan policy). Whilst the Historic Environment Record (HER) does not illustrate any Heritage Assets with archaeological significance as being recorded from the application site itself, the site has never been surveyed from the archaeological point of view and it is therefore possible that currently unknown archaeological Heritage Assets are present. I can appreciate that some parts of the site will have been destroyed in archaeological terms during the construction of the buildings to be demolished, but to ensure that redevelopment does not destroy any surviving archaeological Heritage Assets within areas that have escaped archaeologically destructive groundworks, in line with the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Plan policy HE7, I would recommend that there is the need for archaeological work. The first stage of this archaeological work would be the production of a desk-based Archaeological Assessment. This will combine available archaeological information, and information about the impact of previous and proposed groundworks, to establish more accurately what the site’s archaeological potential and development impact is, and make recommendations as to what (if any) further archaeological work is required. Given that a significant proportion of the site will have been impacted on already, I do not recommend that it is necessary for the archaeological work to be undertaken in advance of any planning permission; but would recommend that securing the archaeological work as a condition of any planning permission is an acceptable and proportionate response. To ensure the required archaeological work is secured satisfactorily, the following condition is appropriate and should be attached to any planning permission: Surrey County Council Countryside Access Officer – Comments received on 2015/1517 carried through

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1538.aspx

of 6

The Rights of Way Office notes the close proximity of the proposed development to the south of Warlingham Public Footpath No. 58. This office has no objections to the above planning application. However, may we draw the applicants’ attention to our following requirements: -

Safe public access to the footpath must be maintained at all times. If this is not possible the applicant must apply to formally close the right of way giving a minimum of 1 months’ notice. There is a charge for this.

Any down pipes or soakaways associated with the development should either discharge into a drainage system or away from the surface of the right of way, and not onto it.

There are to be no obstructions on the public right of way at any time, this is to include vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals.

Any alteration to, or replacement of, the existing boundary with the public right of way, or erection of new fence lines, must be done in consultation with the Rights of Way Group. Please give at least 3 weeks’ notice.

Access along a public right of way by contractors’ vehicles, plant or deliveries can only be done if the applicant can prove that they have a vehicular right. Surrey County Councils’ Rights of Way Group will look to the applicant to make good any damage caused to the surface of the right of way connected to the development.

If the applicant is unsure of the correct line and width of the public footpath, the Countryside Access department will mark out the route on the ground. Applicants are reminded that the granting of planning permission does not authorise obstructing or interfering in any way with a public right of way. This can only be done with the prior permission of the Highway Authority (Surrey County Council, Countryside Access Group).

Surrey Police Crime Reduction/Crime Prevention Adviser – Comments received on 2015/1517 carried through. The Design and Access statement paragraphs 3.7 and 4.4.5 refer to crime prevention and security but does not contain sufficient detail to fully explain how this would be achieved. The proposal should be designed according to the ‘Secure by Design’ (SBD) scheme award (according to the recommended condition) to ensure minimum security standards are incorporated; supporting one of the Government’s key planning objectives: the creation of secure, quality places where people wish to live and work. The SBD scheme can be viewed at www.securedbydesign.com Surrey Wildlife Trust – Comments received on 2015/1517 The Trust accepts that PV Ecology’s Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment dated May 2014 provides an indication of the likely status of protected and important species on the proposed development site. Given that the local habitat is eminently suitable for bats, reptiles and dormice, we would support the recommendation that further surveys are carried out as soon as possible. These surveys will enable the Local Authority to better assess the likely impact of the proposed development on these legally protected species. Government Circular 06/2005 states “it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision”. This information will also enable the applicant to put together, in consultation with their qualified bat specialist, any mitigation and/or compensation measures required, together with the method statement to accompany the application for a European Protect Species (EPS) licence from Natural England should one be required. The applicant should also be required to undertake the Mitigation and Enhancement actions as detailed in Section 6 of the Ecological Report.

http://www.securedbydesign.com/

of 6

It has been brought to our attention that the Ecological Survey submitted did not cover the railway embankment to the west of the site. The proposed works could have a negative impact on any protected and important species present in this area. We would therefore advise the Local Authority to seek clarification on the potential issues detailed below. Though PV Ecology’s survey report is now more than a year old it gives an indication of the likely status of protected and important species on site and we would expect any significant changes in ecological value to be noted during the recommended further surveys. The ecologist notes that “The mature trees and understorey present offer potential for roosting bats and nesting birds and if they were shown to be impacted upon in the proposals then they would need to be inspected by a suitably qualified ecologist to ascertain if roosting bats or nesting birds were present before their removal.” I would therefore recommend that you seek clarification as to whether this vegetation will be impacted by the proposed works. Comments on the current application 2016/1612 The application details do not contain the ‘Bat Mitigation Plan’ by PV Ecology 2014 and the ‘Further Phase 2 reptile survey’ both of which are recommended/referred to in the Phase 1 Report May 2014. The previously proposed parking strip on the highway verge opposite no longer appears to be included in the proposal however the Ecological covering letter dated 12th September 2016 refers to this area having been surveyed and therefore the significance of the survey of this land is unclear. On this basis from the information available the application has not yet demonstrated that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on important and protected species. Sutton and East Surrey Water – No comments received Thames Water – No comments received TDC advice Chief Community Services Officer (Refuse and recycling) – No objection Chief Housing Officer (Housing Enabling) – The proposed affordable provision as follows: 3 x 1 bed flats for shared ownership 4 x 2 bed flats for shared ownership A commuted sum of £ 266,250.00 Housing Association/Registered Provider – Affinity Sutton. I confirm I fully support this scheme on the basis above and recommend that this can be drafted into the S106 Agreement. Other Representations Third Party Comments No objection

No objection to the previous permissions to replace existing 4 dwellings with 4 and 5 new dwellings respectively,

The existing steep slopes and land levels are treacherous and contrary to current building regulations. The large grounds require considerable maintenance but have poor quality soil. As such the large existing family dwellings (not cottages) are outdated and unsuitable for modern family living and are not currently occupied by families,

The proposed flats would provide a more suitable type of living accommodation in relation to the site circumstances,

of 6

The proposed buildings reflect those already approved,

The number of units relates to the plot size and would provide amenity space,

Privacy amenities are respected by the layout/window design,

The proposal would not significantly increase traffic using Well Farm Road (notwithstanding permissions at Whyteleafe House, Godstone Road, Court Bushes Road) and access is sufficiently wide/suitable and according to the transport report would not be harmful to highway safety or parking,

It is assumed that Tandridge’s maximum parking standard levels encourage use of public transport,

The development provides parking all within the site,

There is a limited number of pedestrians travelling through the railway tunnel,

Motorists already use caution when approaching either side of the railway tunnel and this could be assisted by traffic calming,

Access and safety through the tunnel is an existing issue caused by excessive driving speed rather than traffic volume which could be improved by traffic calming or lighting (this should have been part of earlier permissions such as on Picton Mount),

The Council’s Housing Capacity Survey 2003/2004 previously considered that the redevelopment of The White House, No. 10 Southview Road, with 50-70 was feasible, within a similar environment and with similar access to the application site,

Objection General

The application details/drawings are incorrect/inaccurate making it difficult to assess the impact (on adjoining properties). Amended drawings have not addressed the issues raised,

The topography of the site has not been taken into account,

Planning permission was refused for 36 flats,

The applicant has not taken into account pre-application advice (PD/2016/1231), advising that 24 flats would remain overdevelopment, and should therefore be refused,

The approved scheme TA/2015/655 was an acceptable amount of development whereas the additional number of proposed units is unacceptable,

The proposal would not overcome the previous reasons for refusal; therefore planning permission should be refused for 24 flats,

The principles of conditions imposed on TA/2015/655 would not be applied in the current proposal,

The Council should make a site visit and should meet with neighbouring occupiers,

The application should be determined by the Planning Committee if recommended for approval,

Demolition of quality occupied homes for new development is unnecessary,

New development should be constructed in place of disused buildings,

The cumulative impact with the approved flats on Well Farm Road should be taken into account (Whyteleafe House),

There is no need for further development,

The proposal is for profit only,

The proposal may be intensified in future; thereby exacerbating the effects, Character

The proposal would overdevelop the site – six times the number of existing dwellings,

The proposal would be overly dense,

The proposal would be out of keeping,

of 6

Parking spaces on the highway would be out of keeping with the distinctive green and open character and should be prevented,

Additional planting and landscaping should be required; to prevent on-street parking,

The intensification of the use of the site would detract from the semi-rural character,

There would be a 40% loss of protected tree cover (excluding off-site trees); detracting from the character of the site and its setting; with no reasonable justification and should be resisted,

Amenities

The siting; forward projection, and height and mass would have an overpowering/overbearing effect on neighbouring properties,

The proposal would overlook neighbouring properties detracting from privacy amenities; including the long standing neighbouring naturist club,

The naturist club was specifically not sited close to flats and vice versa should apply. The privacy of members throughout the year should be preserved,

Windows facing neighbouring properties should be limited and/or obscure glazed/non-opening for mutual protection of privacy,

Balconies should have privacy screening and flat roofs should not be used as balconies,

No balconies/roof terraces should be permitted,

The developer should provide sightlines showing views into neighbouring properties,

Parking spaces would be located close to neighbouring windows and trees; detracting from their amenities,

The intensification of the residential use would cause additional noise, traffic and disruption,

Highways and parking

The approval for 197 flats on the Whyteleafe House site would increase traffic,

The transport statement does not mention the approved development at Whyteleafe House, Well Farm Road,

The proposal would further increase traffic,

The access through the railway tunnel is narrow and with no pavement,

The proposed traffic measures are insufficient,

The access and high density would be unsuitable for emergency vehicles,

The tunnel should be widened to two lanes to accommodate traffic from Whyteleafe House and this application,

The proposal and other housing developments would prejudice highway safety,

The proposed 32 parking spaces are insufficient causing overspill into Well Farm Road where parking enforcement applies and car parking areas for other neighbouring sites/developments,

The proposed on-street parking bays would hinder access up and down the highway,

The demolition/construction period would hinder access to neighbouring properties,

The railway tunnel would hinder/prevent access for construction traffic,

The railway tunnel should be widened,

During construction traffic management and other measures should be incorporated and agreed with neighbours,

The construction process would damage the highway surface and the developer should make good any damage themselves,

Ecology

The proposal would affect wildlife habitat on the site and in neighbouring sites,

of 6

Assessment Procedural matters Notification of this application has been carried out in accordance with the Councils adopted Development Management Charter including written notice sent to properties abutting the application site, advertisement in local newspaper and the placing of site adverts on/near to the site. The District Council makes a site visit on all planning applications. Third party comments refer to the precedent set by other developments and the precedent that this application would set if it were to be approved. The current proposal is assessed on its own merits in the context of the application site and in light of the relevant development plan policies and the existence of other developments the locality may not necessarily comprise a material consideration to which substantial weight will be attached. Notwithstanding third party comments an applicant is entitled to submit a new planning application. Indeed an applicant may submit a planning application seeking to overcome objection to a previous planning application or planning appeal. The planning authority is unable to refuse to accept the submission of a new planning application provided it is materially different to a previous one and/or there is a different planning policy context as either case could have a material bearing on the assessment of the new proposal. A new planning application would be objectively assessed on its own merits, in light of the site circumstances and relevant planning policies and material considerations; which may include previous planning and appeal decisions. The submission of a new planning application does not necessarily convey that planning permission will be granted. The reason for a development proposal is not a material planning consideration, unless it requires very special circumstances for inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The grant of planning permission does not necessarily convey any permission or consent that may be separately required under the building regulations or from any other relevant land owner. The method of construction, matters concerning structural stability and the technical ability to carry out the development are not material planning considerations. The developer should make good any damage to the publicly adopted highway, however any damage incurred to any other private land is a matter to be addressed by the relevant individuals involved. The Warlingham Village Design Statement; produced by the local community in 2012 to guide development within the Warlingham area, is advisory only and has not been adopted by the District Council as formal guidance. Notwithstanding this, the general points set out in the design statement are also reflected in the Council’s adopted development plan documents. Location and density of development As mentioned in the previous application Core Strategy Policy CSP1 identifies Warlingham/Whyteleafe as a built up area and a Category 1 Settlement where development will take place in order to promote sustainable patterns of travel and in order to make the best use of previously developed land and where there is a choice of mode of transport available and where the distance to travel to services is minimised. As such, there is no objection in principle to the location of the development and Core Strategy Policy CSP1 in this regard.

of 6

The applicant states that there is no rationale or justification identified for adopting a lower density based on local character or distinctiveness and the proposed density is policy compliant. National and local development plan policy now places less emphasis on the efficient re-use of land (including residential garden land); driven by the need to meet minimum densities and, notwithstanding the applicant’s opinion, it places greater emphasis on the need for high quality development that respects and is appropriate to its local context. Nonetheless, the proposal for 24 new units would lead to a density of approximately 26 dwellings per hectare, whilst this is a reduction over the previous scheme; it gives an indication of the general density and character of the development on the site. The wider area has a variety of built development including a variety of detached dwellings and a mixture of flatted development. However in the immediate vicinity of the site, i.e. the southern spur of Southview Road, the residential character is of detached dwellings set within spacious plots at a density of approximately 6 dwellings per hectare. It is noted that planning permission has been granted for the demolition of the four existing dwellings and the erection of five detached dwellings under permission TA/2015/655; comprising a density of 6 dwellings per hectare. It is also noted that the current proposal would have a similar building mass to that permission. However the current proposal would comprise 24 units compared with 5 units in the approved scheme and whilst it would have a similar building mass it would have a considerably greater number of units and corresponding number occupants and other associated elements such as car parking. As such the current proposal would differ considerably from density of the existing residential development in this part of Southview Road, which contributes towards its character, and it would differ considerably from the density of the previously approved scheme TA/2015/655 which would have respected and reflected that of the existing locality. Furthermore, the current proposal; at the forward/northern most point of this part of Southview Road would present a significantly different density and form of development from the low density detached dwellings that would remain at the rearward/southernmost part of Southview Road. In the light of its local context the proposal would not provide an appropriate form and scale of development and would conflict with Policy CSP19. Housing provision The Council’s Core Strategy Policy CSP3 restricts the construction of housing on unidentified residential garden land of over five units or on sites larger than 0.2 hectares. The applicant refers to recent appeal decisions at Whyteleafe Road for two schemes (TA/2013/414 and TA/2013/417) which triggered Policy CSP3. Although they were refused as being contrary to its requirements the Inspector allowed one of these schemes (TA/2013/414) but dismissed the latter (TA/2013/417), concluding that the former need not conflict with the character or appearance of the area or the street scene. The Inspector, at paragraphs 27 and 28, addressed the issue of oversupply of housing, stating as follows: “The Council defended the application of LP1 policy CSP3 to the proposals before me on the grounds that it seeks to avoid the unplanned oversupply of windfall residential garden land, thereby putting pressure on the allocation of less sustainable greenfield sites in the Green Belt. While NPPF paragraph 53 permits policies to restrict the inappropriate redevelopment of garden land, it does not outlaw all development on garden land. Rather, it gives the example of development which would cause harm to the area. As I have found no conflict with policies DP7, DP8 or CSP18, even if the scheme would be contrary to LP1 policy CSP3, the fact that it would comply with, and gain support from, the NPPF, including from the presumption in favour of sustainable development for housing applications, warrants considerable weight. In my assessment, for redevelopment of garden land which would not be inappropriate, and would not cause harm to the area, paragraph 53 of the NPPF is a material consideration which would outweigh any conflict with LP1 policy CSP3.” Based on this appeal decision the applicant considers that an

of 6

objection to the current proposal on conflict with CSP3 is not sustainable, furthermore, that a precedent for this approach can be found in the recent recommendation for application TA/2015/1334 for Ninehams Gardens, Caterham CR3 5LP. For these reasons the proposal would not conflict with Policy CSP3. Chief Housing Officer (Housing Enabling) – The proposed affordable provision as follows: 3 x 1 bed flats for shared ownership 4 x 2 bed flats for shared ownership A commuted sum of £266,250.00 Housing Association/Registered Provider – Affinity Sutton. I confirm I fully support this scheme on the basis above and recommend that this can be drafted into the S106 Agreement. According to the comments of the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer there is demand in the District for 1 and 2 bedroom units. Opportunities for affordable housing developments in Warlingham are rare; the location is very popular with housing register applicants, but the last scheme was completed more than 10 years ago. The current proposal is for 3 x 1-bed flats and 4 x 2-bed for shared ownership along with a commuted sum of £266,250 to be provided in lieu of shared rented accommodation, which could be implemented elsewhere. The applicant has approached Affinity Sutton as the Housing Association/Registered provider of the affordable housing. The proposed provision is supported by the Council’s Housing Department however in the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking there is no mechanism to secure the required affordable housing contrary to Policy CSP4. Character and appearance For the avoidance of doubt the development involves the complete redevelopment of a previously developed site. Although the existing dwellings would be demolished the development would take place on residential garden land and therefore Policy DP8 would apply. Furthermore, the proposal would comprise ‘infilling’ as it would lie within a defined row of dwellings that contribute towards a conventional street scene within Southview Road. The proposal would introduce five detached blocks comprising 36 flats on to a plot that currently accommodates four detached two storey chalet style houses. The proposal would be broadly similar in terms of the location, size and form of the buildings from the previous approval TA/2015/655 and the previous refusal TA/2015/1517 and in terms of building mass would not appear to result in an overdevelopment of the site or a cramped appearance and the design would also respect that of the previous approval. Notwithstanding this, and that the current proposal has been reduced in size to 24 flats, the current proposal would comprise a very different extent, scale and nature of development from the previously approved scheme(s). The size and scale of the proposal for 24 flats within the 5 buildings would result in an overly dense development; and the number of units would require associated facilities including parking and bin storage that would differ significantly in scale and appearance from the same facilities that would serve five individual detached dwellinghouses. In this respect it is concluded that the proposal would provide insufficient parking for the future occupiers of the proposed development according to the Council’s adopted parking standard SPD and this is discussed in further detail below. However even taking into account the shortfall in parking provision, the proposal would be

of 6

dominated by hard surfacing in the frontage of the building(s). This is not a prevailing characteristic existing in this part of Southview Road and it would detract significantly from the character and appearance of existing development. The effect of the development would be especially pronounced as it is located in a prominent location at the junction between Well Farm Road/Tuzos railway tunnel and Southview Road and it is raised up from the level of the highway. Furthermore it would comprise the first development in this part of Southview Road and it would be out of proportion with the remaining properties Nos. 20-24 to the south. For these reasons the proposed size and scale of the development would not be appropriate to the surrounding area in this part of Southview Road. Furthermore, whilst the subdivision of the application site from four individual curtilages to five individual curtilages was not deemed to be inappropriate in the previous permission TA/2015/655 the subdivision to provide a development for 24 units would be inappropriate in this location as it would detract significantly from the character and scale of development in this part of Southview Road; which is formed of detached dwellings set within spacious individually demarcated plots. The difficulty in providing the appropriate level of parking for the development and in an acceptable format/design demonstrates that the proposal would overdevelop the site. The proposal would conflict with Policies CSP18, DP7 and DP8. The proposal would continue to propose solar panels and they would not dominate the roof slopes and would appear to be comfortably accommodated. They would not detract from the character and appearance of the roofs, the buildings or the development in general. Trees on site (but not those along the western edge of Southview Road) are protected by Tree Preservation Order 21 (Caterham & Warlingham); this is an Area order, meaning all trees present at the date of the Order being made are protected - the Order dates from 1964. In addition, the site is within the designated ‘wooded hillside’ area requiring protection of its “distinctive and special character” and maintenance of tree cover. The current proposal involves the removal of 17trees - 6 more than under the previously approved scheme (TA/2015/655). Removal of these trees will impact upon the character of the site but will have only limited impact upon the distinctive character of the wooded hillside. However the currently proposed layout provides significantly more scope than previous schemes for the inclusion of new trees to the roadside frontage (see below) and in my opinion the losses can be adequately mitigated. The tree protection measures comprising ‘light’ fencing to the rear of the properties and standard specification fencing to the retained trees standing to the front of the properties would be adequate. This is an outline application for layout and access only, with landscaping a reserved matter. However, acknowledging the policy constraint:

“The Council will protect the wooded hillsides in the built up areas by ensuring … that there is no overall loss of tree cover” (CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008).

it is appropriate to consider whether the proposed layout offers sufficient scope for adequate landscaping and mitigation for trees lost. The currently proposed layout now affords more soft landscaping; without any negative impact on the living conditions of future occupants, the roadside frontage will be capable of accommodating sufficient trees of (i) appropriate planting size to create an immediate impact and (ii) species capable of achieving a large mature size to mitigate for the loss of those trees which currently contribute to the tree cover of the wooded hillside. The site’s shallow, alkaline soil/ chalk bedrock will influence tree selection but appropriate species e.g. Beech, Yew, Hornbeam would also reflect the

of 6

existing landscape character of the area. Notwithstanding the incremental tree removals, no arboricultural objection is raised to this latest proposal acknowledging that the layout provides adequate scope to mitigate for the tree removals and that retained trees can be adequately protected through the development process and this could be managed by way of planning condition(s) in the event that planning permission is granted. However the absence of objection in landscaping terms (albeit that this would be managed under the reserved matters) would not be sufficient in this instance to overcome the issues raised above. Amenities The requirements of the Council’s Policies CSP18 and DP7 in respect of amenities remain relevant to the proposal. The policies state that in most circumstances, where habitable rooms of properties would be in direct alignment, a minimum privacy distance of 22 metres will be required. This distance may need to be increased to protect those parts of gardens which immediately adjoin dwellings or where sites are sloping. In most circumstances, a minimum distance of 14 metres will be required between principal windows of existing dwellings and the walls of new buildings without windows. The application is submitted in outline with landscaping and external appearance reserved for subsequent approval so to some extent some of these points will be better addressed at the detailed design stage. The submitted site layout plan confirms the relationship between the adjacent block and Nos. 10 and 20 Southview Road is sufficiently offset from the boundary with landscaping proposed to ensure that there is no impact on residential amenity. In addition the only windows in the proposed flank elevation are those serving bathrooms and these will therefore be obscure glazed. As mentioned above the principle of the erection of the five buildings on the application has been established under the previously approved scheme TA/2015/655 and would not significantly harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers by reason of overshadowing or overbearing effect. According to the submitted section drawing and street scene elevation the new dwellings would be constructed on one ground level and, as stated above, the rear ground floor level of No. 18 would be approximately level with the rear ground level of the existing dwelling at No. 18. On this basis there would be no significantly harmful impact on the amenities of the future occupiers or on those at No. 20 in respect of overlooking between the proposed and existing garden areas. Due to the fall in ground level from south to north the proposed Block 1 would be positioned at a raised level compared to the neighbouring property at No. 10. However the proposed street scene elevation the rear ground floor level would be approximately level with the ground level at the rear of the existing dwelling. As such in respect of the exterior areas of the proposed Block 1 would not appear to be a significantly greater or more harmful effect on the neighbouring property at No. 10 than that resulting from the existing dwelling at No. 12. It is also noted that the neighbouring property at No. 10 has some tall boundary screening provided by fencing/corrugated sheeting and trees, although in the event that this is removed, the proposed development would nonetheless, not have an unacceptable impact in terms of overlooking to No. 10. The main outlook would continue to be to the front (west) and rear (east). The blocks on the periphery of the site Block 1 (Type A) and Block 5 (Type C) have few upper floor side flank windows and those that there are would serve non-habitable rooms such as bathrooms and/or they would be secondary windows serving habitable rooms and as such these windows could be fitted with obscure glazing and restricted opening, thereby preserving the privacy amenities of the neighbouring properties,

of 6

without adversely affecting the living environment of the future occupiers. Furthermore given the proximity of the buildings to one another and to the remaining neighbouring properties at Nos. 10 and 20 the side facing bay windows could be fitted could be fitted with obscure glazing and restricted opening and the balconies could be fitted with privacy screens and this would, similarly, not adversely affect the living environment of the future occupiers therein because they are not primary windows to habitable rooms. Notwithstanding this, however, according to the proposed floor plan drawings some of the blocks would have side flank windows serving habitable bedrooms at ground and first floor level. Given the siting of the buildings and their proximity to each other the presence of the flank wall(s) of the adjacent neighbouring block(s) would compromise the outlook of these habitable rooms and this would not provide a satisfactory living environment for the future occupiers of the proposed development contrary to Policy CSP18 and DP7. There is no objection from the Council’s Recycling/Refuse Amenity Officer in respect of the proposed bin storage either for the future occupants of the development or for the refuse collection service operator. The construction process may affect neighbouring amenities by reason of noise and other disturbance (although this could be limited by a construction management travel plan); however, this would be relatively temporary in the context of the lifetime of the completed development and as such is not a sound reason for refusing planning permission. Beyond the construction phase the occupied development may affect neighbouring amenities by reason of noise and other disturbance however the impact would not be significantly more harmful than the existing situation or that which would occur through the implementation of the previous permissions. There is no objection from the Police Crime Reduction/Crime Prevention Design Advisor and in the event that planning permission is granted the applicant would be advised to apply for the Secured by Design Award by way of planning condition/informative. Renewable energy According to Policy CSP14 developments for over 9 units are required to provide at least a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. The supporting energy statement confirms that the proposed PV solar panels would provide at least a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions and this would conflict with Policy CSP14. Notwithstanding this however, it is considered that this type of technology is generally sufficiently effective to provide the required saving in CO2 emissions providing that an appropriate amount of panels are installed. Furthermore there is a significant roof area where panels could be accommodated and subject to a detailed design this would not necessarily detract from the character and appearance of the buildings. As such, in this instance, it would be appropriate to allow it to be demonstrated that the solar panel technology would provide the required 20% CO2 emission saving by way of planning condition in the event that planning permission is granted. Highways and parking A previous application (TA/2015/1517) at the site for 36 residential units raised similar issues to the current application, in terms of intensification, access and impact upon Well Farm Road and the Tuzon Railway Bridge. The County Highway Authority (CHA) considers that the slight reduction in number of units from 36 in the previous application to 24 in the current application would have the same implications on the

of 6

immediate area and the CHA has based its response to the current application on those criteria. The current proposal has been considered by the CHA in the context of the application site and its surroundings and other neighbouring developments including the approved scheme at Whyteleafe House. In this regard, the CHA notes that the development affects the private road of Southview Road (X35190), over which the Highway Authority has no jurisdiction. However the CHA has assessed the proposal in terms of the impact it may have upon the junction of Well Farm Road (X35190) and the A22 (Godstone Road) which are public highways over which the CHA does have jurisdiction. The CHA raises no objection to the proposal in terms of the safety of the entry/exit from the A22 Godstone Road. The CHA raises no objection in relation to the impact of the additional traffic movement generated by the development, and other relevant nearby uncompleted developments, on the local public highway network including the A22. Part of Well Farm Road forms a Town Path (Public Footpath 58) and the CHA notes that pedestrian access from the public highways through the Tuzos railway tunnel is not ideal as it does not have a pedestrian footpath or lighting. Given the number of movements required by HGV and larger vehicles through this section, the narrowness of the carriageway and visibility issues at the intersection of Well Farm Road and Southview Road, prior to any planning permission being granted, the developer is advised to enter into an appropriate legal agreement with the owners of the land on which the Town Path is located in order to secure private vehicular right of access through the tunnel, and thereby negotiate terms prior to commencing development. The applicant has proposed to provide a 1.2m wide pedestrian walkway, demarcated in a colour and outlined with a white line, on the southern side of the tunnel in order to link with the pedestrian footway along Well Farm Road. In addition, the proposal includes lighting within the tunnel. The CHA has consulted with the Road Safety Audit (RSA) team who does not agree with this proposal as it would potentially encourage vehicles and pedestrians to utilise the tunnel at the same time; the vehicles perhaps thinking that there is sufficient space for both uses. Instead, the RSA team has recommended that both 'priority to oncoming vehicles' and 'No footway for X yards' signs are installed on both sides of Tuzos Railway Bridge; with the priority being given to southbound flowing traffic. Whilst there is some scope for the developer to provide pedestrian improvements in the form of lighting through the tunnel; the overall development onto a private road falls outside the County Highway Authority’s remit. The CHA also considers that it would be unreasonable to require the developer to widen the width of the tunnel to improve passing capacity given the scale of the proposed development. Therefore the CHA recommends that the developer enters into a legal agreement to secure any improvements and provide any advisory signage of the Local Planning Authority considers that this is necessary. Notwithstanding the pedestrian access through railway tunnel it considers that the site could be accessed by a range of transport modes including on foot and therefore the CHA does not consider that the site is unsustainably located. The proposal would provide 24 surface level car parking spaces. The single Block type B would provide 3 internal spaces and the three Block type Cs together would provide 9 internal parking spaces. This would total 36 spaces together. However the internal parking spaces do not accord with the internal dimensions set out in the Council’s adopted parking standard SPD and therefore whilst developers are free to include garages with smaller dimensions but are advised that they will not count towards the parking space allocation. On this basis the proposal would technically

of 6

provide 24 parking spaces, according to the parking standard, and this would fall short of the 36 spaces that should be provided. The CHA comments that, notwithstanding the proposed parking, visitors to the development would be likely to park on Southview Road. It does not however object to this possibility on highway safety grounds. Given the shortfall in parking for the future residents the Council considers that it is possible that future residents would be likely to need to park in Southview Road irrespective of whether any visitors to the development would need to also do so. Whilst there may not be an objection on highway safety grounds in this respect the difficulty in providing the appropriate level of parking for the development within the application site and in an acceptable format/design indicates that the proposal would overdevelop the site and furthermore the parking of vehicles on the highway as a matter of course would detract from the character and appearance of the site and its setting. As such, and notwithstanding the comments of the CHA, the Council considers that the proposal provides insufficient parking for the number of units in the development and is contrary to its adopted parking standard SPD, Policies CSP12, DP5 and as it would detract from the amenities of the future residents of the development and from the character and appearance of the area and as such it would conflict with Policies CSP18 and DP7. Third parties mention that Southview Road is a private road. The ownership of land and the position of boundaries etc. is not a material planning matter. Furthermore, as the highway is a private road it is the responsibility of the relevant land owners to manage the parking provisions/restrictions in the road and to take any action on any infringements as necessary. There is no objection from the County Countryside Access (rights of way) Officer. However the applicant is advised that surface water should drain within the site or be directed away from the public right of way, access to/use of the right of way should not be impeded during construction or otherwise thereafter, and to contact the Surrey County Council, Countryside Access Group if they are unsure of the correct line and width of the public footpath. The applicant could be advised of this by way of planning informative as necessary. It is noted that the current proposal would have less hard surfacing that the previous permission TA/2015/655 and the previous scheme TA/2015/1517. However, as mentioned above, there is considered to be a shortfall in parking provided in the current scheme according to the parking standard. As such if the required amount of parking was provided in line with the parking standard then it is likely that the additional hard surfacing would exceed that in the previous permission TA/2015/655. It would also detract from the character and appearance of the site. Surface water drainage The site is not located in an Environment Agency Flood Zone or other surface water flood area. Given the relatively minor changes to the proposal the previous comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) remain relevant. According to the comments of the Lead Local Flood Authority a viable form of sustainable drainage could be incorporated in to the scheme and the site entrance/exists could be designed to limit/manage surface water flows off the site to an acceptable level and this could be managed by way of planning condition. For this reason and according to the recommended condition, in the event that planning permission is granted, the proposal would not exacerbate existing flood issues and there is no conflict with Policy DP21 in this regard. Biodiversity and ecology

of 6

The applicant states that the Council’s ecologist did not object to the previous applications and considers that that the ecological attributes of the site would not have dramatically changed to render the results of a survey undertaken in May 2014 as fundamentally flawed or more importantly to create a conflict with Policies CSP17 and DP19. However the current proposal does not include documents referred to the survey undertaken in May 2014; namely the ‘Bat Mitigation Plan’ by PV Ecology 2014 and the ‘Further Phase 2 Reptile Survey’ and as such the Councils ecologist is unable to ascertain the potential effect of the proposed development on important and protected species that may inhabit the site. It is noted that the previously proposed parking area on the highway verge opposite the proposed buildings is not now proposed to provide parking and therefore the effect of the development on that land is likely to be less critical, however this does not diminish the potential harm on the main part of the site which has not been fully established. On this basis it remains the case that the current application has not demonstrated that it would not be harmful to legally protected or other important species and biodiversity or that it would provide opportunities to enhance biodiversity. The potential impact on the wellbeing of protected and other important species is integral to the principle of allowing development to take place on the site and therefore it cannot be managed by reserved matters or retrospectively by planning condition following the grant of planning. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Core Strategy Policy CSP17 and Detailed Policy DP19. Other matters According to the County Archaeologist a programme of archaeological work could be secured by way of planning condition in the event that planning permission is granted and there would be no conflict with Policy DP20 in this regard. There would be no direct harm to the adjacent railway however in the event that planning permission is granted they would be advised of the recommended informatives. The proposal is liable for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions, however, social housing relief may be claimed on those residential dwellings included in the development that are to be managed by a Housing Association for the provision of affordable housing, therefore reducing the CIL payment to nil. Nonetheless, a social benefit would be derived from the construction of the new affordable houses. Nonetheless, CIL payments would be levied on the remaining dwellings and this could be invested in local services. Conclusion The proposal would fail to respect and reflect the character and appearance of the site and its setting and local context in this part of Southview Road. The proposal would detract from the amenities of the future occupiers of the development. A mechanism to secure the required affordable housing provision has not been provided. The proposal has not demonstrated that it would not have a harmful effect on important and protected species and/or appropriate mitigation measures that could be put in place. For these reasons the proposal is not considered to have overcome the reasons for the refusal of the previous scheme, it would continue to conflict with the Development Plan and it is recommended that planning permission is refused. This development is CIL liable, however social housing relief may be claimed on those residential dwellings included in the development that are to be managed by a

of 6

Housing Association for the provision of affordable housing, therefore reducing the CIL payment. In addition to CIL the development proposed will attract New Homes Bonus payments and as set out in Section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act (as amended by Section 143 of the Localism Act) these are local financial considerations which must be taken into account, as far as they are material to the application, in reaching a decision. It has been concluded that the proposal fails to accords with the Development Plan and the provisions of the Development Plan are not overridden by other material considerations. The implementation and completion of the development will result in a local financial benefit but it is considered that this benefit is insufficient to outweigh other conclusions reached. The Council has demonstrated that it has a five year housing land supply and it considers that material weight should be accorded to the Core Strategy in this case as the basis for assessing housing requirements. Furthermore, design is a key aspect of sustainable development under the NPPF and for the reasons stated, the character and appearance of the area would be harmed by the development. The significant and demonstrable harm identified above are considered to outweigh any benefit to the proposal. The recommendation is made in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). It is considered that in respect of the assessment of this application significant weight has been given to policies within the Council’s Core Strategy 2008 and the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies 2014 in accordance with paragraphs 214 and 215 of the NPPF. Due regard as a material consideration has been given to the NPPF and PPG in reaching this recommendation. All other material considerations, including third party comments, raised by third parties have been considered but none are considered sufficient to change the recommendation. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE 1. The proposed scale and extent of the development would comprise an

overdevelopment of the site, it would be inappropriate to the surrounding area in terms of size and scale; it would not maintain or enhance the character and appearance of the area. Due to the size and scale of the development; including the number of units proposed, it would result in the inappropriate subdivision of the existing curtilage to a size below that in the prevailing area. The proposal would provide insufficient parking however it would nonetheless be dominated by car parking detracting from the appearance of the site and its setting. The proposal would fail to respect and reflect the character and appearance of the site and its setting and local context in this part of Southview Road contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy DPD 2008 and Policies DP7 and DP8 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014.

2. The siting and layout of the proposed blocks would result in an unsatisfactory

living environment for the future occupiers of the development by reason of loss of outlook and the shortfall in parking provision and would detract from the amenities of the future occupiers of the development contrary to Policies CSP12 and CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy DPD 2008 and Policies DP5, DP7 and DP8 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014.

of 6

3. In the absence of a Unilateral Undertaking there is no mechanism to secure the required provision of affordable housing. As such, the proposal would be contrary to policy CSP4 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008.

4. It has not been demonstrated that the development would not harm protected

species or that appropriate mitigation measures could be put in place contrary to Policy CSP17 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy DPD 2008 and Policy DP19 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014.

This decision relates to drawings numbered BX01-S1-01-A, BX01-S1-02-A, BX01-S1-03-A, BX01-S1-05-A, BX01-S1-06-A, BX01-S1-07-A, BX01-S1-08-A, BX01-S1-09 and BX01-S1-10-A scanned on 2 September 2016, drawings numbered BX01-S1-04(a)B, BX01-S1-04B, BX01-S1-11B, BX01-S1-12B, BX01-S1-13B and BX01-S1-14B scanned on 24 October 2016 and drawing numbered BX01-S1-15-B scanned on 2 November 2016.

Signed Date

Case Officer RE 20/12/2016

Checked ENF

Final Check TJ 20 Dec. 16

REPORT PROFORMA - Tandridge...

Documents

Transcript of REPORT PROFORMA - Tandridge...