Planning Committee - 27 April 2010 - London Irish Rugby Football Club

ITEM NUMBER 1



APPLN. NO.: : 09/00841/OUT London Irish Rugby Football Club, The

Avenue, Sunbury On Thames

VALID DATE : 14/12/2009

EXPIRY DATE : 15/03/2010 Demolition of stand and clubhouse an

CTTEE DATE : 27/04/2010(EJS) erection of 194 residential units (of which 12

TARGET : OVER 13 WEEKS have associated workspace), a care home,

site for a future health centre, construction of

estate roads and the provision of new open

space including a new neighbourhood park.



As shown on drawing nos. 2347/PLG01, 02,

05 and Design and Access Statement

received 07/12/2009 and 2347/PLG 03/C,

04/C received on 14/04/2010 for London Irish

Holdings Ltd.



WARD : Sunbury East



RECOMMENDED DECISION: Refuse Planning Permission



1. Development Plan



Core Strategy and Policies DPD



 SP2 (location of development)

 HO1 (housing numbers)

 HO3 (affordable housing)

 SPG on affordable housing

 HO4 (small units)

 HO5 (density)

 EN4 (Protected Urban Open Space (allocated sites B3 and C9)

 EN1 (Design of New Development)

 SPG on design of new residential development and extensions

 LO1 (Flooding)

 CO2 Provision of infrastructure for New Development

 EN3 (Air Quality)

 CC1 (Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation and Sustainable Construction)

 CC2 (Sustainable Travel)

 CC3 (Parking Provision)

 EN5 (Listed Building - beyond the site)

 EN8 Protecting and Improving the Landscape and Biodiversity

 EN15 Development on land Affected by Contamination



Saved Local Plan



 BE26



South East Plan



 H3 (housing allocation)

 LF4 (affordable housing)





1

National Policy Guidance



 PPS1 (delivering sustainable development)

 PPS (planning and climate change – supplement to PPS1)

 PPS3 (housing)

 PPS5 (planning and the historic environment)

 PPS 9 (biodiversity and geological conservation)

 PPG13 (transport)

 PPG17 (planning for open space, sport and recreation)

 PPS 22 (renewable energy)

 PPS23 (planning and pollution control)

 PPS25 (development and flood risk)



2. Relevant Planning History



2.1 The site and adjoining land has a detailed planning history but only the more recent or

relevant planning applications are referred to below.





Application Proposal Decision & Date

No

89/00789/FUL Erection of eight 16m high floodlit towers. Approved 12/03/1989

99/00583/OUT Extension of corporate hospitality building Approved 16/05/2000

to provide clubhouse for amateur club with

four pitches following demolition of existing

buildings. Erection of 3700 sq. m leisure

centre with associated access

00/00371/RES Details pursuant to Outline Planning Approved 16/08/2000

Permission PA/99/0583 for the extension

of corporate hospitality building to provide

clubhouse for amateur club with four

pitches following demolition of existing

buildings. Erection of 3700 sq. m leisure

centre with associated access.

01/00969/FUL Alterations to approved landscaping Approved 06/03/2002

proposals approved under PA/00/0371

(details originally required pursuant to

condition No.2 of outline planning

permission PA/99/058) principally in

respect of the retention of the earth bunds.

04/00073/FUL Retention and use of main stand for Approved 23/06/2004

purposes associated with rugby club

including rugby academy and associated

landscaping and improvements.





3. Description of Site



3.1 The application site relates to the existing London Irish Rugby Football Club which is

located on the western side of The Avenue in Sunbury. The site comprises a total

area of 6.4 hectares. The southern part of the site is roughly rectangular in shape and

the northern half is L shaped. There are a total of 3 pitches on the southern part and

one on the northern side (two minimum adult size and two full sized adult pitches). In

the middle of the site there is an existing two storey sports club pavilion and a



2

spectator terrace (480 seats) overlooking the main pitch immediately to the south. Car

parking (30 hard paved and 120 soft/permeable spaces) exists to the east of the

pavilion and also on the south eastern side of the site. Access to the site is via The

Avenue and is located between numbers 143 and 145 The Avenue. There is a strip of

private land between numbers 165 and 169 The Avenue further to the north which was

formerly used as an access but is now overgrown and gated off.



3.2 The site is surrounded by existing housing on the northern side (Pinewood), the

eastern side (The Avenue) and the southern side (Manor lane). Directly to the north

and west (and adjacent to the L shaped part) of the site is the Virgin Active Fitness

Centre. This facility has car parking to the north and east and is accessed via The

Avenue utilising the same access as London Irish. To the west of the site is St Paul’s

College (the main building is listed) with its associated buildings and sports grounds.

The school driveway from Manor Lane forms the western boundary of the southern

part of the site. The site is designated as Protected Urban Open Space (site B3)

under Policy EN4 within the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document

(CS&P DPD). A site plan is attached at Appendix 1.



4. Description of Current Proposal



4.1 This is an outline planning application, by London Irish Holdings Ltd, with layout and

access details to be considered at this stage. The application proposes to demolish

the existing stand and clubhouse and erect 194 residential units (of which 12 have

associated workspace), a care home, site for a future health centre, construction of

estate roads and the provision of new open space including a new neighbourhood

park. The existing and proposed site layouts are attached as Appendices 2 and 3.



4.2 As indicated in 4.1 above, outline planning permission is sought, with layout and

access details to be considered at this stage. Department for Communities and Local

Government (DCLG) Circular guidance 01/2006 sets out what is required for layout

and access as follows:



Layout – the way in which buildings, routes and open spaces are provided within the

development and their relationship to buildings and spaces outside the development.



Access – this covers accessibility to and within the site for vehicles, cycles and

pedestrians in terms of the position and treatment of access and circulation routes and

how these fit into the surrounding access network.



The matters which are not covered are:



Scale – the height, width and length of each building proposed in relation to its

surroundings.



Appearance – the aspects of a building or place which determine the visual impression

it makes, excluding the external built form of the development.



Landscaping – this is the treatment of private and public space to enhance or protect

the site’s amenity through hard and soft measures, for example, through planting of

trees or hedges or screening by fences or walls



4.3 The proposed housing will include the following:



 90 apartments (39 one bedroom flats and 51 two bedroom flats) of which 12

have associated workspace



3

 66 two bedroom cottages

 16 semi detached three and four bedroom houses

 22 detached four and five bedroom houses

 60 bedroom care home



4.4 The proposed layout shows two distinctive areas of housing each with their own

access, one on the northern part of the site to the north of the existing Virgin Active

Leisure Centre and one on the southern side, which is the larger of the two.



Northern part of the site



4.5 The layout includes a row of 24 two bedroom cottages in 6 blocks of four dwellings

(block A1). These are sited approximately east to west with their rear gardens backing

onto the rear gardens of the existing properties in Pinewood. The gardens of these

cottages would each have an approximate length of 14.5-16m. There would be a

further 10 two bedroom cottages, in two blocks of four dwellings and one pair of semis,

positioned at right angles to the 24 cottages backing onto the existing dwellings in the

Avenue with similar lengths gardens to the 24 cottages (block A2). All of the cottages

would be two storey in height (with no dormer windows in the roof space).



4.6 Further to the south and closer to the Virgin Active Centre would be two adjoining

three storey blocks. The western one (block B) would be T shaped and would

comprise one and two bedroom apartments. The eastern block (block C) would

contain a 60 bedroom residential care home. Between the 24 cottages and the care

home/apartments and also to the east of the care home would be areas of car parking

laid out on a grasscrete surface. There would also be areas of parallel parking on the

eastern side and two blocks of car parking adjacent to the apartment block. Vehicular

access to this part of the site would be via a former and now disused access between

nos. 165 and 169 The Avenue.



Southern part of the site



4.7 Two storey two bedroom cottages are proposed along the western side with their rear

gardens backing onto St Paul’s College and the College Sports Ground. There will be

32 cottages in total in eight blocks of four (blocks D1 and D2). A large three storey

block (block E), with the top floor set back, will be centrally positioned on the northern

side and to the south of the Virgin Active Leisure Centre car park. It will comprise the

site for a potential future heath centre and workspace at ground level, with apartments

above. There will be ten detached dwellings (block G1) on the southern boundary with

their rear gardens backing onto the rear gardens of the existing dwellings in Manor

Lane. The minimum depth of these gardens would be some 11m but some are

considerably more. There would be a further ten detached dwellings (block G2) on the

eastern boundary of the site with their rear gardens backing onto the rear gardens of

the existing dwellings in The Avenue. They will have a minimum garden distance at

the nearest point of the house of approximately 12m.



4.8 The last two detached dwellings, making a total of 22, will be centrally positioned on

the site. All of the detached houses will be 2.5 storeys incorporating dormer windows.

Also in the central part of the site will be 16 semi-detached three and four bedroom

dwellings (block F). Access to this part of the site will be via the existing access

located between 143 and 145 The Avenue. The layout incorporates off site parking for

the detached and semi detached dwellings and also some car parking on a grasscrete

surface and parallel on street car parking.







4

4.9 The development proposals incorporate three areas of public open space all of which

are roughly rectangular in shape and are positioned on the eastern side of the site.

Two of these are open spaces to serve the development and comprise a combined

area of 5,442m2 (OS1 and OS2). The other area lies to the north of the retained

access to the Virgin Active Leisure Centre and would form a new neighbourhood park

comprising 5,914m2 (OS3). Within the southern part of the open space and the

neighbourhood park would be play areas – LEAPS (Local Equipped Areas of Play).

The layout incorporates a number of new trees to be planted on some of the

boundaries of the site, on the open space site and neighbourhood parks, and also

within the Grasscrete parking and parallel parking areas. In addition, a number of

existing trees on the boundaries of the site, protected by two Tree Preservation Orders

(TPO), as well as a larger TPO tree within the new neighbourhood park, are shown to

be retained.



4.10 A summary of the proposals are set out in the two tables below provided by the

applicant:



Total Proposed Development



Gross development area 26,478 sq m

Numbers of units 194

3 bedroom+ houses 38

1-2 bedroom units 156

Proportion of 1-2 bedroom units 80%

Affordable housing 20 units – 10.3%

Residential density 35dph

Other development 60 bed care home

Site for potential Health Centre

Public open space 1.13 hectares

Car parking 374 spaces





Proposed Development by type



GEA (sq m) No. of Units

I bedroom flats 63-75 39

2 bedroom flats 88-98 51

2 bedroom cottages 90-96 66

3 bedroom houses 144 (includes 1 car 16

garage)

4 bedroom houses 154-174 (includes 1 19

car garage)

Larger houses 274-310 (includes 1 3

or 2 car garage)

Workplace Units 1088 12

Potential Health Centre 1250 1

Care Home 4425 1



4.11 The proposals include a total of 20 units of affordable housing, in various locations on

the site, which comprises 10.3% of the total housing. The following is proposed:









5

Social Rented Housing Numbers of units

I bedroom apartment 1

2 bedroom apartment 3

2 bedroom house 7

4 bedroom detached house 2



Shared ownership

1 bedroom apartment 2

2 bedroom apartment 5



Total 20



4.12 In terms of the proposed parking, as indicated above, a total of 374 on site spaces are

proposed. The applicant has proposed a provision which is 10% less than the

Council’s maximum parking standards. The applicant states that:



“this is considered reasonable given proximity of the development to Sunbury Rail

Station and to extensive bus services on Green Street and at Sunbury Cross to the

north. No reduction from stated maximums is pursued for non-residential uses”.



4.13 The parking standard requirements are set out in the table below:



Units SBC parking Max. 10% On site

standard parking reduction Provision

Northern

Section

1 bed flats 19 1.25 24 21

2 bed flats 25 1.5 38 34

2 bed 34 1.5 51 46

cottages

Residential 101 101

Total

Care Home 60 15 15 15

beds

Car Club * 2 2 2

TOTALS 130 118 118





Southern

Section

1 bed flats 20 1.25 25 23

2 bed flats 26 1.5 39 35

2 bed 32 1.5 48 43

cottages

3 bed houses 16 2.25 36 32

(>80sqm)

4 bed + 22 2.5 55 50

houses

Residential 203 183 181

Total

Workspace 121 1 12 12 12

units

Potential 17 51 51 54

Health rooms



6

Centre

Potential 6 6 6

Health

Centre

delivery,

emergency

access &

disabled drop

off spaces

Car club * 3 3 3

TOTAL 275 255 256

GRAND 405 373 374

TOTAL



* A car club is a facility where occupiers have the opportunity to effectively use a pool

car to undertake journeys – instead of necessarily owning their own car



4.14 Members will be aware of a second related application which has been submitted by

London Irish for the development of the Hazelwood Golf Course, which will also be

considered on this agenda. It is useful for members of the committee to be aware of

the club’s reasons for submitting that application when considering this proposal.



4.15 The applicants, London Irish, have indicated that:



“at present the current facilities on The Avenue site are insufficient for the London Irish

Rugby Club to satisfy current or anticipated future needs. Demand for rugby is rising

and given the success of the Academy scheme there are also future plans to provide

more opportunities for young players. Demand for the clubs amateur activities also far

outstrips its capacity to accommodate it on a regular basis, and off site pitches are

required each week to provide additional playing space. Using off site facilities poses

many difficulties for the club: there is a cost to renting other pitches and this has an

impact on monies available to be spent on promoting high quality facilities and

activities on the existing site. In addition, there are operational and logistical difficulties

relating to holding games in different locations, complications in terms of travelling to

and from pitches and uncertainty as to the condition of other pitches.”



4.16 The related planning application at the nearby Hazelwood Golf Course

(09/00842/OUT) is for a ‘Centre of Excellence’ to comprise five adult and 12 junior

natural turf sports pitches, three of which to be floodlit and one to be a third generation

(3G) artificial grass pitch. A new clubhouse is proposed (following the demolition of

existing buildings) along with parking for London Irish and associated landscaping to

include creation of a lake. The current planning application for residential development

will help fund the proposed ‘Centre of Excellence’.



5. Consultations



5.1 South East England Partnership Board – The Regional planning body does not

consider that the proposals are of regional significance, and therefore does not make

any comments.



5.2 Surrey County Council Planning (Strategic Consultation) – Raises objection on

grounds that the site is open land not identified as being suitable for housing and

mixed development. Also raises concern over inadequate affordable housing, loss of

open land and change to more densely urbanised character and archaeological

concerns. Makes a number of other comments including a requirement to satisfy



7

Surrey County Council Transportation and need for an educational contribution.

Comments that it is for the Borough Council to judge the benefits of the scheme

against its local policies.



5.3 Highways Agency- No objection subject to a S106 to ensure that the travel plan is

monitored and targets are achieved.



5.4 County Highway Authority – No objection subject to a legal agreement to secure a

financial contribution towards improvements to non-car modes of transport, a travel

plan auditing fee and various conditions to secure the highway works.



5.5 County Archaeological Officer – Objects due to insufficient information submitted to

make an informed view on archaeological impact



5.6 Thames Water – Makes a number of comments relating to surface water drainage.

Comments that the existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity to

meet the additional demands for the proposals. Recommends a condition be imposed

to ensure that water supply infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the

additional demand.



5.7 Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition relating to drainage details.



5.8 Natural England – No comment on planning proposal. Confirms that it is Natural

England’s view that, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, the

proposals are not likely to have a significant effect on the South West London

Waterbodies SPA and the permission may be granted (subject to other planning

considerations) under the terms of the Habitats Regulations. Requires further

consultation if there are protected or BAP species on this site. Biodiversity

enhancements should be secured.



5.9 Surrey Wildlife Trust – Makes a number of comments and recommendations. Also

comments that the development offers many opportunities to restore or enhance

biodiversity.



5.10 Surrey Police - Crime Prevention Design Advisor – No objection. Recommends early

consultation with the applicant to enable many elements of Crime Prevention through

Environmental Design being incorporated.



5.11 Sport England – No objection subject to conditions/legal agreement including a

requirement that the development proposed under 09/00842/OUT for the new London

Irish Centre of Excellence is built and made available prior to the commencement on

this current application site. Note: they have not commented on whether they would

object to the loss of The Avenue site if Hazelwood was not developed.



5.12 Fields In Trust (Formerly National Playing Fields Association) – Unable to provide a

response.



5.13 Surrey Playing Fields Association – Any comments received will be reported to the

Planning Committee.



5.14 Council Leisure Services – Would not want to lose sports facilities/open space.

However, if the London Irish development proposed under 09/00842/OUT for the new

London Irish Centre of Excellence was to go ahead, it would be an excellent sport

facility and would compensate for the loss of pitches on the Avenue site. Require that





8

the development proposed under 09/00842/OUT is built and made available prior to

the commencement of development on this current application site.



5.15 Council’s Tree Officer – Objects to loss of a number of trees and hedge.



5.16 Head of Environmental Health (Noise Issues) - Recommends that a condition be

imposed requiring the applicants to submit a noise assessment prior to

commencement of the development.



5.17 Head of Environmental Health (Air Quality) – raises no objection on air quality

grounds. Recommends condition concerning dust.



5.18 Head of Environmental Health (Contamination) – No objection. Recommends a

condition be imposed.



5.19 Head of Environment Services (Sustainability and Waste Officer) – No objection. 10%

renewable energy can be provided on site.



5.20 NHS Surrey Primary Care Trust – has made some early exploratory investigations into

an opportunity for development of a potential health centre at the site. They are

required to carry out further detailed investigations unrelated to planning and remain

non committal.



6. Public Consultation



6.1 A huge volume of letters has been received in relation to this application. At the time

of writing this report, a total of some 495 individual letters and 362 standard petition

style letters of objection have been received. In accordance with standard

procedures, only the individual letters of objection have been acknowledged. There

have also been 250 letters of support. Of the 250 letters of support, 46 come from

within the borough, and 204 out of borough.



A bundle of 2,595 letters in support of both applications was submitted to the Council

on 8 April 2010.



6.2 Due to the large number of representations, it is not possible to detail every individual

point in this report. However, the main points raised are summarised below (and a full

list of comments are set out in Appendix 4). In addition, in accordance with normal

practice the letters can be viewed on the Council’s website and will be made available

for Members to inspect in the Members room prior to the Committee.



Any letters received after the writing of this report will be counted as late

representations, and will be reported to councillors on the night of the planning

committee.



The letters of objection make the following comments:



 The Council is able to meet its housing requirements in other ways. The site is not

required for the Council to meet its housing targets.

 London Irish did not take the opportunity to get the site designated for residential

development as part of the Local Development Framework.

 The whole site is designated as an area of Important Urban Open Space. No

justification has been provided for the loss of this much valued space.

 The site is being over-developed and the density and mix of houses/flats is not

appropriate for the surrounding area.



9

 No evidence to show that a care/nursing home is needed.

 Not clear how committed London Irish and the Primary Care Trust are to delivering

a surgery.

 The additional housing would place a huge burden on the local road network,

resulting in traffic congestion and adverse impacts on highway safety.

 Air quality would be adversely affected as a result of the additional traffic

generated.

 The existing drainage and sewerage network would be unable to cope with the

additional housing.

 London Irish will not develop the site and will sell the site on. There is no ‘cast iron’

guarantee that even if permission is granted it will be built as approved.

 The residential development is only required to fund the rugby facility, for which no

real justification has been given.

 The new development would put a further strain on existing infrastructure.



The letters of support make the following points:



 Existing facilities are inadequate and the site at The Avenue cannot be developed

further.

 London Irish are committed to the local community and wish to stay in the

area/Borough.

 Sunbury is the ‘spiritual home’ of London Irish.

 London Irish contribute economically to the area

 Hazelwood brings the opportunity to develop a centre of excellence for rugby.

 The need to expand is essential to the continuing success of London Irish

 The local community will be able to use the facilities, improving the ability of young

people to become involved in sport.

 The existing open space at The Avenue site is not publicly accessible and is

privately owned

 A new public open space is proposed at The Avenue site which would be truly

accessible to all

 London Irish engaged in an extensive public consultation process and significantly

changed their proposals as a result

 the proposals represent an opportunity to further improve the quality of life for local

residents



7. Issues



 Loss of open space and recreational facilities

 Need for housing

 Size and type of housing

 Affordable Housing

 Density/Layout /design

 Residential amenity

 Education policy

 Impact on a listed building

 Provision of a new community facility

 Transportation

 Air quality

 Flooding/drainage

 Ecology/Nature conservation

 Archaeology

 Contamination



10

 Renewable Energy

 Planning Benefits

 Public consultation replies



8. Planning Considerations



8.1 The relevant local planning policies for the development of the site and the issues the

proposal raises are set out in the Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan

Document (CS&P DPD) which was adopted by the Council in February 2009, the

Allocations DPD adopted in December 2009 and in six ‘saved’ policies in the

Spelthorne Borough Local Plan. The approved South East Plan, May 2009 and

national guidance set out in PPS’s and PPG’s are also relevant.



Loss of Open Space and Recreational facilities



8.2 PPG 17 ‘Planning for Open Space Sport and Recreation’ recognizes these facilities

underpin people’s quality of life. The guidance requires authorities to undertake

assessments of needs in their areas, set local standards and ensure an adequate

supply of open space in its various forms. The PPG recognizes both the importance of

recreational activity by people on sites as well as the nature conservation value and

visual amenity. The issue of visual amenity is particularly pertinent in this instance and

paragraph 3 (vi) of the annex to the PPG is relevant:



“(vi) as a visual amenity: even without public access, people enjoy having space near

to them to provide an outlook, variety in the urban scene, or as a positive element in

the landscape”



8.3 The Council undertook an ‘Assessment of Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Provision’ in Spelthorne in September 2005 in support of the now adopted CS&P DPD.

That assessment considered the extent and adequacy of existing provision in its

various forms including outdoor sports facilities. The assessment identified that only

32% of people felt current provision was ’about right’ (Appendix 3 – Appendix A) and

there were unmet needs for junior football and also a general need for additional

synthetic turf pitches. It was concluded there was no justification for any loss of

existing sports and recreation provision including any reduction of the existing

provision of 2.37 ha of sport pitch provision per 1000 population. The report went on

to identify the need for a playing pitch strategy and there also existed various

deficiencies in amenity green space and children’s equipped play areas. These

conclusion must be seen in the context of Sport England’s target to increase

participation in sport and physical activity (see para 10.22 of the CS&PDPD)



8.4 From this work Policies SP6 and EN4 were developed and adopted to, amongst other

matters, maintain and improve existing provision and maintain open space in the

urban area. The Council was mindful of government advice to protect open space,

even when only its visual amenity was available. This too is reflected in policy EN4

(d(ii)) and all appropriate sites in the urban area with a physical or visual open space

value were identified for protection and identified on the proposals map. The issue of

the protection of sport provision is also covered in policy CO1 amongst a range of

community facilities that are required and whose loss will be resisted.



8.5 One of the key planning issues to consider with this planning application is the sites

functional role as a sports ground as well as its designation as Urban Open Space and

whether the open space to be retained is adequate and acceptable in policy terms.

The site is located entirely within Protected Urban Open Space (sites B3 and C9)





11

which also includes the adjoining St Paul’s School and associated playing fields. The

policy states that:



“The Council will seek to ensure there is sufficient open space which is well sited and

suitable to meet a wide range of outdoor sport, recreation and open space needs by:

a. providing additional space where required (see also Policy CO3),

b. maintaining and improving provision and access to open space through the

design and layout of new development, encouraging owners and users of

private sites to make improvements and also improving provision on Council

owned land,

c. seeking to maintain, improve and where appropriate expand networks of green

space and pedestrian and cycle routes with a recreational role,

d. retaining existing open space in the urban area used, or capable of use, for

sport and recreation or having amenity value where:



i. there is a need for the site for sport or recreation purposes, or

ii. the site as a whole is clearly visible to the general public from other public

areas and its openness either:

 makes a significant contribution to the quality and character of the

urban area by virtue of its prominence, layout and position in relation

to built development in the locality, or

 is of particular value to local people where there is a shortage of open

space in the locality.

iii. the site is of particular nature conservation value, of at least SNCI or

equivalent quality.



Exceptionally, development may be allowed on part of a site within the urban area

which should otherwise be maintained for the above reasons where:

e. the remainder of the site is enhanced so its public value in visual and functional

terms is equivalent to the original site or better, or

f. essential ancillary facilities are proposed to support outdoor recreational use of

the site, or

g. the sport or recreational use is relocated to an alternative site of equivalent or

greater value in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility to users of the

original site, and other factors do not justify retention.”



8.6 As outlined in Section 4.0 above, it is proposed to build on much of the existing urban

open space and retain some open space as part of the new layout. A summary of the

open space provision for the development is set out below:



Total Existing Open Space Proposed Open

Space

52,900sq m (excluding New Neighbourhood

existing building, Park 5914 sq m

access and car park)

Open Space for

Residents 5442 sq m

Total 59,200 11,356









12

8.7 The existing designated area of urban open space is 6.36 Ha in total and comprises a

single contiguous area. It is rectangular in shape except at the point where the site

narrows due to the construction of the Virgin Active Leisure Centre and associated car

park. The figure includes the entire site area including buildings. The area of actual

open space is 5.29 Ha. The proposed retained areas of open space will have an area

of only 11,356m2 (or 1.13 Ha).



8.8 In support of their proposals, the applicant sets out how they consider that their

scheme does not undermine policy EN4. Under a) and b) of EN4, the applicant points

out that the London Irish training ground is private and there is no public right to use

the space. Their proposal provides open space specifically designed for public use

and would improve access to the space. With reference to d) ii, of the policy the

applicant states that the site is barely visible from surrounding public areas because it

is enclosed on all four sides by houses and trees. Whilst glimpses of the site can be

seen from some streets, the applicant considers that they are not important public

viewing points and the whole site cannot be seen from any of them. With regard to the

rest of the policy, the applicant considers that the site does not make a significant

contribution to the quality and character of the urban area either by virtue of its

prominence or by its position in relation to the built development in the locality. In

addition, the applicant states that there is no open space deficiency in the area and

that this has been confirmed to them by the Council’s Leisure Services.



8.9 As EN4 is a critical policy in the consideration of this application an assessment will be

made under each sub heading of the policy.



a) “providing additional open space where required”.



8.10 The proposal does not provide any additional space per se as it clearly results in a

large net reduction of open space being available. Some open space will be retained

for the proposed residents of the new development in accordance with policy CO3

(this will be dealt with in more detail separately below).



b) “maintaining and improving provision and access to open space through the design

and layout of new development, encouraging owners and users of private sites to

make improvements and also improving provision on Council owned land”.



8.11 As there will be a reduction in provision, the proposals will not maintain and improve

provision, although it will allow general public access to the limited amount retained.



c) “seeking to maintain, improve and where appropriate expand networks of green

space and pedestrian and cycle routes with a recreational role”.



8.12 The proposals will not maintain or improve green space with a recreational role; most

of the open space will simply be lost.



d) “retaining existing open space in the urban area used, or capable of use, for sport

and recreation or having amenity value where:









13

i. there is a need for the site for sport or recreation purposes, or

ii. the site as a whole is clearly visible to the general public from other public

areas and its openness either:

 makes a significant contribution to the quality and character of the

urban area by virtue of its prominence, layout and position in relation

to built development in the locality, or

 is of particular value to local people where there is a shortage of open

space in the locality

iii. the site is of particular nature conservation value, of at least SNCI or

equivalent quality.”



8.13 The proposal fails to address adequately the importance of the visual amenity of the

open space identified in PPG17. The site, whilst privately owned, is visible to the

public at several places. It can be viewed from The Avenue through the two existing

accesses between, 143 and 145 and also 165 and 169 and also along the access from

Manor Lane to the adjoining playing fields. In addition, members of the public

regularly enter the site to visit the Virgin Active Leisure Centre and enjoy the views of

the open space in the process. In addition, whilst the land to the west is a school

playing field, these facilities including the all weather pitch, are also used by many

members of the public. St Paul’s School driveway is located directly to the west and is

one of the main routes into the school. The site is quite open at this point and this

open aspect can be enjoyed by the public using the school driveway. Likewise the

adjacent college sports grounds are used by many sections of the community. It is

also relevant to note that a significant number of the public visit the site on a regular

basis, for example parents who take their children to rugby training or festivals. The

large number of letters in support of the proposals would indicate the number of

members of the public appreciating this open space is very significant. Furthermore,

the site is clearly visible to the numerous residents of the dwellings in The Avenue,

Pinewood, Manor Lane and, to a lesser extent, Manor Drive/Manor Gardens.



8.14 Whilst it is recognized that in planning terms there is no right to a view designation as

urban open space recognizes a visual quality requiring protection. The site is clearly

visible to these users and occupiers of dwellings and it makes a contribution to the

quality and character of the area. Therefore it is clear that the site is clearly visible to

the general public and makes a significant contribution to the character of the urban

area by virtue of its prominence, layout and relation to the built development in the

area. Furthermore, there are a significant number of children who play rugby, and

parents who watch them. They are also currently able to appreciate the openness of

the site.



8.15 The site has no particular nature conservation value in terms of any formal

designation.



8.16 The policy also states that “Exceptionally development may be allowed on part of a

site within the urban area where:



e) the remainder of the site is enhanced so its public value in visual and functional

terms is equivalent to the original site or better”.



8.17 The current undeveloped portion of The Avenue site extends to 5.29 Ha. This would

drop to 1.13 Ha in total with the redevelopment. Of this 1.13Ha, 0.54 Ha provides

open space required for the new houses, and only 0.59 Ha is set aside for a new

neighbourhood park. This represents an approximate reduction of 4.7Ha in the open

space which can be used by the local community.



14

8.18 It is envisaged that the proposed neighbourhood park will have paths, seating, a picnic

area, informal areas for play and space for a locally equipped play area. Whilst this is

certainly an enhancement, it is not considered to be anywhere near sufficient in terms

of additional public value in visual and functional terms to offset the 89% drop in

protected urban open space.



8.19 The policy also states that “Exceptionally development may be allowed on part of a

site within the urban area where:



f) essential ancillary facilities are proposed to support outdoor recreational use of the

site.”



8.20 This does not apply to the proposed redevelopment of the site, which is for residential

development.



8.21 The policy also states that “Exceptionally development may be allowed on part of a

site within the urban area where:



g) the sport or recreational use is relocated to an alternative site of equivalent or

greater value in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility to users of the original

site, and other factors do not justify retention.”



8.22 It should be noted that an exception to policy was made when the Virgin Active Leisure

Centre was approved on part of this site, and any further loss of land should be

strongly resisted. Furthermore, the proposed development is not on “part” of the

Avenue site but on the significant majority of it, and what is retained could not be

regarded as equivalent to the existing position.



The application would result in an unacceptable loss of an outdoor sports

facility as well as a site protected as urban open space which makes a

significant contribution to the quality and character of the urban area. The

scheme is therefore in conflict with policy EN4 of the CS&P DPD. As such, the

development should be refused for the reasons identified.



In addition, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of

an outdoor sports facility for which there is a clear demand. It is contrary to

Policy EN4 of the CS&PDPD. As such, the development should be refused for

the reasons identified, particularly as the proposed replacement facility at

Hazelwood is unacceptable on planning grounds.





Need for housing



8.23 PPS1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ and PPS 3 ‘Housing’ both focus on the

need to make best use of existing urban land. PPS3 makes it clear at paras. 40/41

that:



“A key objective is that Local Planning Authorities should continue to make effective

use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed.



The national annual target is that at least 60 per cent of new housing should be

provided on previously developed land. This includes land and buildings that are

vacant or derelict as well as land that is currently in use but which has potential for re-

development.”



15

8.24 PPS 1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ states at para. 36 that:



“In support of its objective of creating mixed and sustainable communities, the

Government’s policy is to ensure that housing is developed in suitable locations which

offer a range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and

infrastructure. This should be achieved by making effective use of land, existing

infrastructure and available public and private investment, and include consideration of

the opportunity for housing provision on surplus public sector land ……. The priority

for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict

sites and buildings.”



8.25 I am mindful of the policy advice which seeks to encourage new housing within urban

areas. Policy HO1 of the CS&P DPD deals with the provision for new housing

development and states that the Council will ensure new development is provided by a

number of means including:



“(g) ensuring effective use is made of urban land for housing”.



8.26 Whilst the site is within the existing urban area, it is protected urban open space and

should be preserved for that purpose.



8.27 PPS 3 ‘Housing’ states that:



“Where Local Planning Authorities cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply

of deliverable sites, for example, where Local Development Documents have not been

reviewed to take into account policies in this PPS or there is less than five years

supply of deliverable sites, they should consider favourably planning applications for

housing, having regard to the policies in this PPS ……

Local Planning Authorities should not refuse applications solely on the grounds of

prematurity.”



8.28 The Council’s Core Strategy and Policies DPD identifies the requirement for the

Council to provide 3320 dwellings between 2006 and 2026. The Council’s Annual

Monitoring report 2009 shows that completions in the first three years are slightly

ahead of requirements (para 4.8), there is more than the required five year supply of

deliverable housing sites required by national policy and the Council has an identified

capacity to meet the total housing requirement, (Tables 7,8a, 8b, and Figs 4 and 5).



8.29 Given the Council can clearly meet its housing requirements there is no justification to

set aside an important designation to protect urban open space in order to provide

housing over and above what is required and has been planned for.



The proposal fails to provide an adequate justification in terms of housing need

and current planned housing provision to set aside the Council’s policy to

protect existing sports facilities and protected urban open space. It is contrary

to Policies SP6 and EN4 of the CS&PDPD. As such, the development should be

refused for the reasons identified.





Housing Size/Type



8.30 The proposals provide for 39 one bed, 117 two bed, 16 three bed and 22 four bed

dwellings. Policy HO4 (a) requires developments of 4 or more units to include at least

80% of their total as one or two bedroom units. This application proposes just over



16

80% which meets the policy requirement and therefore this aspect of the proposal is

acceptable.



Affordable Housing



8.31 PPS 3 ‘Housing’ explains that the government is committed to the provision of housing

for people who are unable to access or afford market housing. It identifies the role of

developers of market housing in providing a proportion of ‘affordable ‘housing on

appropriate sites. The South East Plan reflects this in its Policy H3 and specifically for

the London Fringe sub-region in Policy LF4. In turn this is reflected in Policy HO3 of

the CS&P DPD which requires affordable housing to be provided on sites of 0.5 Ha or

above by negotiating for a proportion up to 50%. The tenure split should be up to 35%

in the form of shared ownership and 65% for rent. The application site falls within the

size threshold.



8.32 The development proposes a split of 35% shared ownership and 65% social rent

which is acceptable. However, the total amount of affordable housing is not

acceptable for the reasons explained below.



8.33 The Council has taken specialist independent valuation advice on the level of

affordable housing proposed. The application proposes 10.3% affordable housing with

the provision of 20 units (out of 194). The Independent valuer, in assessing whether

the level of affordable housing was acceptable, looked at this current proposal and the

proposed replacement facility at the Hazelwood Golf Course for a ‘Centre of

Excellence’.



8.34 10.3% affordable housing provision is based on the projected residual site value of the

development of The Avenue site overall, when viewed in relation to the development

costs for providing the facility at Hazelwood. It is understood that the value generated

from the residential site should fund the cost of the new ‘Centre of Excellence’.

Notwithstanding that there is not absolute parity between these two figures, the offer of

10.3% affordable housing is not based on a proper application of policy HO3 and the

value of the application site, but has taken account of aspirations for growth of London

Irish well in excess of the existing facilities to be replaced. It is of course important to

recognise that the Hazelwood site proposal is considered unacceptable for a number

of reasons. In part these are related to the scale of what is proposed and its

associated costs which in turn results in the affordable housing provision on the

Avenue site being so low.



8.35 The valuer considers that there is a very substantial site value enhancement as a

result of this development, and were this site to be considered within Policy HO3 there

would be absolutely no doubt that the Council’s 50% target for affordable housing

would be met. This application however does have to be considered in conjunction

with Application 09/00842/OUT, which is the proposal to relocate the existing facilities

currently on The Avenue site. The Hazelwood Golf Centre extends to some 20.7 Ha

and provides a nine-hole golf course together with a floodlit driving range, and a club

house. The proposal is to remove the golfing facility, and to provide a substantial club

house and portable stand plus four natural turf rugby pitches (two floodlit), two natural

grass pitches, ten mini-rugby pitches, together with a floodlit artificial grass pitch,

which would be suitable for soccer.



8.36 A letter indicating the total costs of the development including the purchase of the land

from the golf club and associated costs, together with the re-development costs of

providing the club house and the pitches, ancillary infrastructure costs, and the cost of





17

borrowing has been provided to the Council. The valuer believes the costs identified

(but not the planning merits of the scheme) to be reasonable.



8.37 However, it would seem that it is the applicant’s desire to fund the new scheme

essentially from the proceeds of the sale of The Avenue site, subject to the planning

consent, although with their offer of approximately 10% of the proposed units for

affordable, there is a shortfall which appears to have been funded by their

shareholders. There is a large discrepancy between the Council’s requirements for

50% of affordable housing and the 10.3% offered in this scheme. As noted above, it is

quite clear that were the re-development of The Avenue, taken in isolation, there

would be no difficulty at all in securing a 50% contribution given the huge site value

enhancement as compared with the existing use value. The surplus created from The

Avenue is per se not profit, as it is redirected towards the provision of the new facilities

for the London Irish Rugby Club. The issue then is the extent to which, if at all, the

Hazelwood development constitutes a material factor in considering the level of

affordable housing as set out in policy HO3.



8.38 A detailed case has been put forward on behalf of the applicants for this re-

development, both to secure the future of the London Irish Rugby Football Club within

the Borough of Spelthorne, and to provide a broadly based range of community

facilities consistent with the primary use. Whilst the planning aspects of this

application are not per se the concern of the independent valuer, he notes that, in his

opinion, the loss of the golf facility should not be regarded as crucial in the

consideration of this application.



8.39 The valuer does have a concern that London Irish have made the presumption that the

new facility at the golf club would be funded effectively at the expense of the Council’s

affordable housing policy. Implicit in that presumption is that Spelthorne is subsidising

the uses when:



a) The London Irish Football Club is a professional business and,

b) Whilst the community facilities envisaged are extensive, their use is most

certainly not confined to residents of Spelthorne Borough Council.

c) London Irish will have the benefit of a substantial appreciation in their asset

base.



8.40 The Council’s advisor does not believe it is the function of the Council to effectively

make a major capital contribution to London Irish’s development of the site by

conceding a lower affordable contribution than is set out in policy HO3. Whilst it

seems clear that some benefit will accrue to the community by virtue of the facilities

available to residents, the valuer has no basis of measuring this.



8.41 In the absence of a business model, in considering both the substantial enhancement

in site value in the residential site; and the material asset enhancement at Hazelwood

compared with the existing facility, the valuer has no basis by which he can

recommend to the Council other than a 50% contribution to affordable housing. This

leaves the Rugby Club with a funding shortfall on the development of Hazelwood,

which the valuer does not believe is the Council’s function to fill. Given the asset value

in the new scheme, which itself is materially higher than in the existing facility, it should

not be impossible for the Rugby Club to fund that shortfall via borrowing and with

membership/playing fees.



8.42 In light of the Council’s concerns over the level of affordable housing, the applicant

submitted additional information to justify their position on 1 April 2010. They have

stated:



18

‘The proposed development at The Avenue is enabling development to permit the

provision of an enhanced facility at Hazelwood. This concept is a well established

material consideration in the determination of the applications. We have demonstrated

in The Avenue Planning Statement how the provisions of SBC Core Strategy Policy

EN4 allow existing open space sites which do not fulfil criterion (d) to no longer be

retained as protected, and that under another criterion (g) development on part of

open space sites can be permitted where the sporting use can be satisfactorily

relocated and enhanced … The development of The Avenue, to enable the

development of an enhanced facility at Hazelwood, is a unique circumstance. EN4 is

no bar to the proposal which is in effect contemplated by policy EN4 (g). Without this

enabling development London Irish would not be able to improve the facilities for

playing of amateur rugby……that are presently much needed.



Any affordable housing provided as part of the development of The Avenue site is in

addition to the provision planned in the core strategy, whether from allocated or

windfall sites….. The bulk of the proceeds from the development are required to

provide the replacement facility at Hazelwood and the provision of affordable housing

is therefore an additional benefit arising from any surplus after the replacement costs

are taken in to account’.



8.43 The Council’s advisor has reviewed this and other detailed information, but there is no

critical information which would change his view. Policy HO3 is quite clear and the

applicant would have been fully aware from the outset what was required.



It is concluded that the application proposes insufficient affordable housing for

which no reasonable justification has been provided, and conflicts with policy

HO3 of the CS&P DPD and Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable

Housing and should be refused on this basis.





Layout/Design/Density/Residential Amenity



8.44 Policy HO5 of the CS&P DPD states that:



“In considering proposals for new residential development, other than conversions of

existing buildings, the Council will take account of the following density guidelines

together with the requirements of Policy EN1 on design of new development.



a) within existing residential areas that are characterised by predominantly family

housing rather than flats, new development should generally be in the range of

35 to 55 dwellings per hectare.”



8.45 The planning application is submitted in outline with layout and access details

submitted for approval at this stage. The matters reserved for approval at a later date

are scale, landscaping and appearance. However, the application is supported by a

number of drawings which include a master plan, cross sections at various parts

through the site, and a highway adoption plan. Based on a site area of 6.4 hectares,

the proposal has a density of 35 dwellings per hectare which is higher than the density

associated with the existing development around the application site. The density of

the adjoining properties in The Avenue and Manor Lane the density is 12.56 dwellings

per ha. This is significantly lower than the proposed density for the proposal site.



8.46 However, national planning guidance stipulates that Local Planning Authorities should

avoid the inefficient use of land. Para 47 of PPS3 ‘Housing’ makes it clear that 30



19

dwellings per Ha net should be used as a national indicative minimum to guide policy

development and decision making. It goes to state that:



“where local authorities wish to plan for, or agree to, densities below this minimum,

this will need to be justified, having regard to paragraph 46.”



8.47 Para 46 explains that housing density policies should be developed having regard to a

number of issues including the level of housing demand, future level and capacity of

infrastructure, the desirability of using land efficiently, the desirability of achieving high

quality well designed housing, and the characteristics of the area, including the current

and proposed mix of uses.



8.48 The density falls within the 35-55 dwellings per hectare range specified in policy HO5.

An assessment has been made of the relationship of this development in density

terms to the surrounding residential area. Whilst it is higher the site is not prominent in

the streetscene, and is not highly visible.



8.49 Having taken these matters into account, on balance the scheme is considered

acceptable in terms of density and complies with HO5 of the CS&P DPD.





Layout and design



8.50 Whilst the planning application is in outline with scale, landscaping and appearance

the matters reserved, officers have to be satisfied, with the submitted illustrative

information, that the number of dwellings proposed can be comfortably accommodated

on the site. As a consequence, the layout and the design have been the subject of

much consideration by officers in order that they can be sure whether or not the

amount of dwellings proposed can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. One

way of assessing this is to consider the size of each garden and the amenity space for

the flats. Another is the distance from the back of new properties to the rear

boundaries for each dwelling. A further issue is the building height and massing.



Separation distances



8.51 The Council’s supplementary guidance on the design of new residential development

provides minimum separation distances for two and three storey residential

development. For two storey development the back to back distance is 21m and the

back to boundary distance is 10.5m, for three storey development the distances are

30m and 15m respectively. All the proposed two storey properties which border onto

Pine Wood, The Avenue and St Paul’s College meet these minimum distances and

many exceed them. In addition, all of these two storey distances are met internally

within the site. Although this is the case there is one particular relationship which is

very tight indeed (even though the minimum distance is met). No 22 Pinewood would

only be a distance of 24m from the proposed two storey cottages at the northern end

of the site. The garden of this property is only 9m deep. The general sizes of the

properties in Pinewood would suggest that a greater gap is needed.



8.52 The remaining dwellings which border onto The Avenue and Manor Lane on the

southern part of the site are two and a half storey with in the roof space and dormer

windows to the front. The proposal to ensure that all accommodation at the third level

incorporated windows to the front and not rear could be the subject of a planning

condition for consideration in the design at the reserved matters stage. These

dwellings would, therefore, be taller than a traditional two storey dwelling but obviously

not as tall as a three storey house. The back to boundary distances for these



20

dwellings are a minimum of approximately 11-12m although some are considerably

more. The back to back distances for all of these dwellings exceed 40m. With the

exception of the proposed apartments on the northern part of the site which are close

to the boundary with St Paul’s College, all the three storeys exceed the minimum

separation distances for three storey development.



8.53 Whilst the minimum separation distances are met in relation to properties outside the

site boundary, it should be borne in mind that these distances are a minimum, and do

not necessarily mean automatic acceptability. In this case, the character of the area is

considerably more spacious, with larger properties and longer back gardens.

Consideration has been given to whether this means that the minimum distances are

insufficient to protect the character of the surrounding area. It is considered that the

relatively self contained nature of the site means that the minimum distances are

acceptable.



Having taken these matters into account, on balance the scheme is considered

acceptable in terms of density and complies with EN1 of the CS&P DPD.





Amenity space



8.54 In terms of minimum garden sizes, the Council’s supplementary guidance on the

design of new residential development provides minimum rear garden areas and

amenity space standards for flats. These are 70m2 for a three or more bedroom semi

detached or detached dwelling and 60m2 for a terraced or two bedroom semi detached

dwelling. For flats the standard for shared space is 35m2 per unit for the first five units,

10m2 for the next five and 5m2 for each unit thereafter. All of the detached and three

bedroom plus dwellings have in excess of 70m2. In terms of the flats, 44 are proposed

on the northern side requiring a total amenity space of 395m2 and more than this is

shown on the masterplan. On the southern side, 46 flats are proposed (of which 12

have associated workspace) and the amenity space adjacent to the building meets the

Council’s standards.



8.55 There are no space standards for care homes but in my opinion the master plan does

show a reasonable amount of amenity space for this facility.



8.56 However, many of the two bedroom cottages have amenity space of slightly less than

this at 50m2. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement states that the garden

sizes would be a minimum of 70m2 but they do not scale off as such on the submitted

masterplan. This issue has been raised with the applicant and they have confirmed

that the figure of 50m2 is correct. Whilst the overall density of the site is considered

acceptable in policy terms, consideration needs to be given as to where the housing

and other uses are placed on the site, and whether this is acceptable in detailed terms.



8.57 The two bedroom cottages have garden sizes significantly below the standard (by

some 20m2). This is considered to be indicative of a development which can only be

achieved by providing inadequate garden space. As a result, the layout of this

particular section of the site is considered to appear unduly cramped both in relation to

the rest of the site as well as the surrounding area.



The proposed development, would, by virtue of the inadequate garden sizes of

some of the two bedroom dwellings, result in a layout which would appear

cramped and out of character with the surrounding area which is spacious in its

nature, contrary to policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD and should be refused on this

basis.





21

Open space for development



8.58 Policy C03 of the CS&P DPD states that in new housing developments of 30 or more

family dwellings the Council will require a minimum of 0.1ha of open space to provide

for a children’s play area. Such provision is to be increased proportionally according

to the size of the scheme. This application includes 155 family dwellings (defined as 2

bedrooms or more) requiring a provision of 0.5166ha. The proposed provision of

0.5442ha of public open space exceeds this. Furthermore, this excludes the new

public park which provides an additional 0.5914ha.



The scheme provides adequate open space and complies with policy CO3 of the

CS&P DPD





Trees and landscaping



8.59 In accordance with policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD new development requires a high

standard in the design and layout of new development. In particular section d) requires

a scheme to:



“incorporate landscaping to enhance the setting of the development, including the

retention of any trees of amenity value and other significant landscape features that

are of merit, and provide for suitable boundary treatment.”



8.60 Policy EN7 sets out that where existing trees make an important contribution, the

Council will promote tree preservation orders wherever appropriate to safeguard

healthy trees of amenity value.



8.61 The impact of the proposal on the existing trees and shrubs is an integral part of

assessing the design and has been considered by the Council’s tree officer. The

existing major trees on the northern part of the site, north of the drainage ditch are

covered by TPO 143. The trees on this part of the site, apart from the large oak

located in the proposed open space, are all positioned on the boundaries of the site.

The proposals on this part of the site offer little threat to the major trees with all the

best larger trees being retained in the scheme. The proposal appears to show the

removal and replacement of existing established young vegetation that was planted as

a condition of planning permission 01/00969 around the boundary with the Virgin

Sports club. In addition, the scheme require the removal of an establishing mixed

hedgerow on the north western boundary which was also planted under 01/00969 and

helps screen and separate the site from St Paul’s School.



8.62 On the southern part of the site, the proposals show the removal of five poplars on the

western boundary of the site. These trees are highly visible within the area and should

be retained. Likewise, there are two oak trees dominating the rear gardens of a

number of properties and are likely to lead to requests to remove these trees by future

occupiers of the proposed houses. There are a further 2 Oaks, 3 Ash and 1 Lime

within proposed rear gardens which are likely to face the same pressure. In order to

ensure the long term retention of all these trees a Tree Preservation Order was served

on 12 April 2010 (TPO 235/2010) to ensure their protection.



8.63 In addition, the scheme places rear access footpaths on the western boundary and will

require the removal of an established mixed hedgerow on the western boundary that

was also planted under 01/00969. This hedgerow also helps to screen and separate



22

the site from St Paul’s School. It also contains large growing trees such as oak and

ash. The landscaping approved under 01/00969 followed the permission for corporate

hospitality building to provide clubhouse for amateur club with four pitches following

demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 3700m2 leisure centre (Virgin) with

associated access the leisure centre.



8.64 Overall, therefore, the layout requires the removal of a number of good trees and a

hedge and threatens the future retention of a number of trees on the southern part of

the site. Furthermore, established planting on the northern part of the site is shown as

being removed and minor revisions to the layout would allow retention.



The proposed development pays insufficient regard to and would have an

unacceptable and detrimental impact on the existing trees and landscaping

contrary to policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD and should be refused on this basis.





Design Code



8.65 Policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD requires a high standard in the design and layout of new

development. In particular section a) requires a new development to demonstrate that

it will:



“create buildings and places that are attractive with their own distinct identity; they

should respect and make a positive contribution to the streetscene and the character

of the area in which they are situated………….”



8.66 Design codes have been submitted in support of the application. The primary purpose

is to ensure that the new development will complement the character of The Avenue

area and achieve high quality design. The codes cover issues such as character,

spatial parameters, appearance and sustainability. There are area wide codes

covering general landscaping, building appearance and interface. There are also area

specific codes covering streets and spaces (public realm) and plots and buildings

(private realm). Each code consists of a discretionary part and a mandatory part.

Examples of details included in the design code include:



Streets and spaces

Roads and footways – widths and materials

Shared surface areas – materials

Landscaping – types and locations

Local Area for Play and Locally Equipped Area for Play – minimum buffer zones,

landscaping, equipment, seating, fencing, surfacing



Plots and buildings

Block layout – clear distinction between public and private

Plot – widths, depths, back to back distances, front garden, boundary treatment

Waste and recycling – location

Building – height, distance back from footway, percentage of the building on the

building line, maximum insets from building line, projections measured from building

line, floor to ceiling heights

Roofscape – pitch of roof

Appearance – materials, colour, windows e.g. two storey bay windows, recessed

principle entrances, casement windows, yellow brick and white render

Parking – garage/unallocated on street.

Sustainability – 10% renewable, reduce space heating, comply with the required level

of Code of Sustainable Homes



23

8.67 The proposed design codes explain how a future development would be set out and

the details which would apply. They very clearly relate to the existing well established

residential neighbourhood, but also provide a coherent site which has its own distinct

identity. Were the scheme acceptable in all other respects, the design codes would

need to be included in a S106 agreement to ensure that they were followed through at

the detailed reserved matters stage.



The design codes are considered acceptable and would ensure the proposed

development respects the character of the area but provides its own identity. As

such, it complies with EN1 of the CS&P DPD.



Residential amenity



8.68 The applicant has provided proposed sections of the development. These, together

with the master plan, allow the impact on the existing residential properties to be

assessed. As indicated in the section above dealing with distance from boundaries, all

of the dwellings meet or exceed the minimum separation distances where they back

onto existing residential properties. The proposed three storey buildings are situated

well away from the boundaries of the site. Indeed, some of the existing properties in

The Avenue will back onto the proposed open space. It is considered that with the

height and scale of the proposed buildings and given the proposed setbacks; it is

considered that the amenity of the existing dwellings in terms of light, privacy and

proximity/overbearing nature is acceptable.



8.69 There would be traffic noise associated with the two access points, in particular for the

northern most access which is presently disused, and this will be considered in

highway terms under the transportation section of this report. However, an

assessment needs to be made of the impact of traffic generated by the development

on the amenity of the residential properties adjoining the access. The existing southern

access lies between 143 and 145 The Avenue, whilst the disused northern access is

located between Nos. 165 and 169.



8.70 In light of the existing use and the proposed level of development on the southern

section of the site it is not considered the traffic movements here would have an

adverse impact on the residential amenity of those properties. The situation at the

northern end of the site is somewhat different as the access is not currently used. The

development will introduce additional traffic with the associated potential for additional

noise disturbance to the properties siding onto it. Whilst there will inevitably be a

change in noise levels the Council Environmental Health service do not consider the

impact to be sufficiently detrimental to recommend refusal.



8.71 Overall, therefore, many parts of the proposed layout are acceptable in planning

terms. However, there are some elements that are not acceptable and would require

amendments to ensure a satisfactory layout. These relate to the inadequate garden

sizes of some of the two bedroom dwellings which would result in a layout which would

appear cramped and out of character with the surrounding area which is spacious in

its nature. There is also concern over the impact on some of the existing TPO trees

and landscaping and the layout does not have sufficient regard to these matters. It

may well be that both of these issues could be overcome with an amended scheme

although this is likely to have implications for the number of dwellings proposed.



The proposed development, would, by virtue of the inadequate garden sizes of

some of the two bedroom dwellings, result in a layout which would appear

cramped and out of character with the surrounding area which is spacious in its



24

nature, contrary to policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD and should be refused on this

basis.



In addition, the proposed development pays insufficient regard to and would

have an unacceptable and detrimental impact on the existing trees and

landscaping contrary to policy EN1 of the CS&P DPD and should be refused on

this basis.





Education Policy



8.72 Surrey County Council has produced detailed evidence of the need for a financial

contribution toward primary and early years education in Sunbury. This is because

insufficient capacity exists to meet the demand for school places arising from this

development and unacceptable pressure would otherwise be placed on education

facilities were it not to be mitigated. They have identified a required sum of £638,392

which reflects their calculation of a need for some 49 school places arising from the

155 dwellings of two bedrooms and more and which are likely in their view to have

children resident. The total sum is in two parts comprising £531,954 for primary

provision and £106,438 for early years provision. Surrey has identified that primary

provision is required by additional infrastructure at Springfield School and in the case

of early years provision the precise location and form of infrastructure to meet the

need has yet to be finalised. In respect of the later Surrey comment that it would be

open to the developer to provide this directly if they chose to and if so a financial

contribution to Surrey would not then be required.



8.73 Circular 05/2005 'Planning Obligations' requires any request for a contribution to meet

5 tests. These tests are:



i. relevant to planning

ii.necessary to make a proposed development acceptable in planning terms

directly related to the proposed development

iii.

iv.fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed

development

v. reasonable in all other respects.



8.74 I am satisfied that in this case the request is appropriate and that without an

agreement to make the required contribution the development is unacceptable. At the

time of preparing this report London Irish have not undertaken to enter into an

agreement to make the required financial contribution.



As a consequence, the proposal has not been able to demonstrate that it will not

have an adverse impact on educational need and conflicts with policy CO2 of

the CS&P DPD, and should therefore be refused on this basis.





Impact on a listed building



8.75 Within the St Paul’s School complex is a listed building (St Theresa’s Convent).

Regard has to be had to the effect of the proposed development on the setting of this

building. Policy EN5 of the CS&P DPD requires development proposals:



‘for any sites affecting the setting of a listed building to have special regard to the need

to preserve its setting’.





25

8.76 The listing relates to a building which was formerly a manor house and now part of the

St Paul’s school and is accessed off The Ridings to the west. It is located some 60

metres from the site boundary and 70 metres from the nearest proposed buildings;

there are more modern school buildings in this gap. The building is early 19th Century

with some 20th Century extensions. It is not particularly prominent but is visible from

several points in the locality. From The Avenue, the upper part of the listed building

may be seen from the defunct access, the existing school buildings screening the

lower part.



8.77 The proposed three storey care home and apartments will block this view of the upper

parts from this view point but due to the distance involved and given that a lot of the

listed building is already obscured at this point; it is not considered that the impact on

the listed building is adversely affected. From the west, it is possible to view the listed

building from The Ridings and the new three storey block of flats is likely to be viewed

above it but it will be the top part of the new building only and it is not considered that

the setting of the listed building will be affected. Within the boundary of the school

buildings, the listed building is close to the existing school structures and it is not

considered that the new development would adversely impinge on the setting of the

listed building.



It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the

setting of the listed building and complies with EN5 of the CS&P DPD.





Provision of a new community facility



8.78 The layout makes provision for a potential future health centre. The applicant has not

provided any details at this stage, other than to confirm the land will be made

available. Policy SP5 of the CS&P DPD seeks to ensure that provision is made for

services and facilities to meet the needs of the community. Policy CO1 of the CS&P

DPD aims to ensure community facilities are provided to meet local needs by

supporting the provision of new facilities for which a need is identified, in locations

accessible to the community served. Paragraph 2.19 of the CS&P DPD records the

position at April 2007 where the then North Surrey PCT envisaged the need for

improvements to the existing Sunbury health centre in Green Street to be achieved in-

situ (i.e. on the existing site).



8.79 The Surrey Primary Care Trust has made some “early exploratory investigations” into

the applicants’ proposal. However, they are “required to carry out further detailed

investigations unrelated to planning and therefore…remain non-committal at this

moment.” Without any further definite details from the applicant at this stage, it is

difficult to establish accurately if this is a totally new facility or whether it will replace an

existing centre.



8.80 The principal of a new health centre is not objected to. However, this particular

proposal involves the loss of urban open space and the absolute need to use this site,

as against redevelopment of the existing site and whether it is in the best/most

accessible location, has not been demonstrated.



8.81 At this stage, neither the applicant nor the Surrey PCT have made any firm

commitment to this element of the proposal. There is no funding set aside to ensure

that this becomes a reality. Limited weight should be given to this element of the

scheme as the ability to deliver it is questionable. It cannot really be considered as an

over-riding benefit to the scheme.





26

8.82 The scheme also proposes the provision of a 60 bed care home. It is understood that

this will be private, and little additional detail has been provided on whether it will

provide general or specialist care. Sunbury currently has sufficient ‘extra care’

facilities proposed, and the Council is not actively encouraging any more facilities at

this point in time. It is considered that the provision of the care home is a ‘neutral’

benefit, and should not carry significant weight when considering the scheme overall.



It is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of the principle of the

provision of a community facility and meets CO1 of the CS&P DPD, although the

deliverability is very questionable.



Transportation



8.83 Policy CC2 of the CS&P DPD aims to ensure that new development is compatible with

the transport infrastructure in terms of total movements, capacity of the local transport

network, cumulative impact, access/egress from the site and highway safety. Major

developments need to ensure access by non-car modes and promote sustainable

travel.



8.84 This desire to be more sustainable is complimented by Policy CC3 on parking

provision which seeks appropriate on site provision including for cycles.



8.85 The policies reflect the guidance in PPG 13 ‘Transport’ as well as the South East Plan.





Transportation Assessment



8.86 The applicant has submitted a Transportation Assessment (TA) and this has been

assessed by the County Highway Authority (CHA) and the Highways Agency (HA).

The TA assessed national, regional, local and parking policy, the existing situation, the

travel estimation of the proposed developments, transport strategy and transport

impact and mitigation. A travel plan is attached to the TA. The transport strategy is

divided into three areas:



 on site measures - on street spaces, parking/servicing and travel plan

 improvements on the site boundary to provide means of access for all modes

 measures in the local area to mitigate adverse impact caused by development

traffic.



8.87 Under the Transport Strategy, the following are considered:



Access strategy and internal street layout – The scheme aims to encourage walking,

cycling and social uses. On street parking as part of a comprehensive package of

street design features will be used to manage traffic speeds to 10 miles per hour. It is

proposed that the majority of streets are adopted as public highway except the parking

associated with the care home and health centre.



Additional plans have been submitted showing the swept path of a refuse vehicle, plus

various amendments to the internal layout to allow for a refuse vehicle to manoeuvre

more easily within the site. The amendments are acceptable.



The CHA also advises some parking spaces are not conveniently located for the

dwellings, which may result in inappropriate parking elsewhere, however this is a

design issue and not a highway safety issue.





27

There is a significant amount of planting within the proposed highway and the CHA will

require commuted sums for any planting, and for any use of unusual or non-standard

materials. The effective length of the road network may also prejudice adoption.

However it should be noted that adoption of the streets is a matter between the CHA

and the developer.



Level of parking –the number of parking spaces for the whole site has been calculated

using Spelthorne’s parking standards. For residential development, the applicants

have proposed a 10% reduction from the stated maximum parking standards. The

applicant considers this to be reasonable given the sites proximity to the Sunbury rail

station and to bus services on Green Street and at Sunbury Cross Parking will be

partly allocated (private) and partly unallocated (on street). The proposed 194

dwellings will have 282 residential parking spaces which equates to 1.45 parking

spaces per unit. In addition there will be five car club spaces and one cycle space per

unit, 6 cycle spaces for the care home and 17 for the health centre.



The Avenue residential Travel Plan – The travel plan seeks to encourage sustainable

travel choices for trips to and from developments. The plan incorporates a number of

measures including:



 Sheltered/weatherproof cycle parking/storage facilities

 High speed ‘real time’ public transport information and other services to avoid

unnecessary car trips

 Car share databases and clubs

 Information/education packs providing up to date public transport

timetabling/information and walking routes and journey times



Access Improvements - Two points of access are proposed from The Avenue. The

southern most (existing) access will be retained and upgraded and will be used by the

development and the Virgin Active Health Club. The northern site access which is not

used at present will be upgraded. The applicant states that “this access is required to

adequately disperse traffic loads”.



Wider improvements. The applicant states that these measures are proposed “to

mitigate adverse transport impacts resulting on the surrounding road network as a

consequence of The Avenue residential development”. They include:



 Staines Road East/The Avenue – junction improvement - traffic signalisation.

 The Avenue/Batavia road – providing a raised table to provide traffic calming

and improved pedestrian accessibility.

 The Avenue/Manor Lane – providing a raised table to provide traffic calming and

improved pedestrian accessibility or a mini roundabout.

 The Avenue/cycle facility improvements – a raised table will be implemented to

connect up the cycle facility due to be provided by this Council from Croysdale

Avenue to The Avenue.

 A financial contribution has been requested by the CHA towards area wide

improvements to walking, cycling and public transport.



8.88 The section of the TA on transport impact and mitigation advises that the effect of the

proposals on the local transport network have been assessed for 2014, the year of

opening. The analysis assessed the junction capacity of all the main junctions within

the Lower Sunbury area which might be affected by the development proposals.

Where impacts were identified, the applicant has produced mitigation schemes. In

terms of public transport provision, the site is fairly well located. The TA recognises





28

that the site has good walking access to Sunbury railway station; it can be accessed

by public transport with Green Street providing access to a high frequency bus route

and has good access by walking and cycling.



County Highway Authority



8.89 The applicant and the CHA have had extensive discussions regarding the TA.

Additional work submitted by the applicant has been accepted by the CHA.



8.90 A number of junction improvements have been identified within the Transport Strategy

for The Avenue development. The applicant has submitted plans for the various

junction alterations which have been safety audited by the CHA. At the time of writing

the safety audits all but one were completed and the applicant had provided their

designers response (exception report) to the CHA, who were considering the response

before taking a decision to accept the design. Detailed comments on the signalisation

of the Staines Road East/The Avenue junction are required prior to the CHA accepting

the designs. At the time of writing we are still awaiting comments from the CHA,

however the principle of signalising the junction has been accepted.



8.91 The CHA initially made a number of detailed comments regarding the transport

assessment asking for further information and clarification on a number of points.

After further extensive discussions and additional information from the applicant the

CHA is now satisfied that the impact modelled on the network is robust. The trip rates

are reasonable, which have been checked by the CHA. The applicant has added the

proposed development traffic onto the network and then modelled the network with the

development traffic. They would be entitled to removed the traffic associated with the

existing use from the network, but have chosen not to. This adds a further level of

robustness to the modelling, in that the applicant has modelled a worst-case scenario.



8.92 The original travel plan submitted by the applicant was inadequate and required

significant improvements to bring it up to the standard required by the CHA’s Travel

Plan Good Practice Guide. The applicant has since submitted an amended draft travel

plan, which takes into account some of the comments made by the CHA, but not all.

At the time of writing it was being considered by the CHA, although they are unlikely to

recommend refusal on such measures.



8.93 The County Council also requires the following items which should form part of a S106

agreement. The applicant has offered £75,000 towards one or more of the following

transport measures.



 Improvements to Sunbury train station – a new ticket office, enhanced CCTV

cameras and brighter lighting, new/additional passenger/cycle shelters.

 Buses - improvements to bus stops in the vicinity, providing better passenger

information such as Real Time Passenger Information, SMS text messaging,

suitable information for younger users.

 Intelligent bus priority - at traffic signal controlled junctions, including the Sunbury

Cross M3 junction if the HA are agreeable.

 Green Street - traffic calming/management and school management.

 Travel Plan and auditing fee – Separate fee of £6150



8.94 The County Engineer concludes by stating that subject to a few outstanding points, set

out below, the application is acceptable in highways and transportation matters:



 An acceptable Travel Plan





29

 Acceptance of the Exception Report

 Detailed comments from CHA’s Signals Team



8.95 Subject to a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards improvements

to non-car modes of transport a travel plan auditing fee and various conditions to

secure the highway works in particular the application is considered acceptable to the

CHA.





Highways Agency



8.96 The Highway Agency (HA) has been consulted on the application, on the basis that it

has a duty to safeguard the operation of the motorway and trunk road network (which

it manages on behalf of the Secretary of State). In the case of development at Sunbury

this relates to the M3 Junction 1. This junction generally operates within capacity most

of the time.



8.97 The HA initially served an Article 14 Direction which prevented the Council from

approving the application for a 6 month period. They were not satisfied that the

Transport Assessment and Travel Plan demonstrated there would be no adverse

impact on the motorway/trunk road network.



8.98 In their view the Transport Assessment did not provide several pieces of critical

information:



1. predicted turning movements of development traffic to and from the M3

2. current personal injury records for the last four years for the M3 Junction 1

3. failure to include information on the number of heavy goods vehicles entering

and leaving the site during the construction phase.



8.99 Concerns were also expressed about the Travel Plan. In their view, the 2% modal

shift suggested through the use of car clubs and a shared database would be difficult

to achieve. They considered that the promotion of public transport could be

strengthened using various financial incentives. The success of public transport

measures is particularly important here given the identified barrier of the M3/A316 and

rail line to cycle use. If modal split targets are not met, or if vehicle trips rates exceed

the agreed amount then the HA consider that enforcement measures should be

introduced.



8.100 The applicant has sought to address these concerns and has submitted additional

information on the transport assessment and the travel plan. The HA are satisfied with

the assumption that 20% of trips from the proposed developments will access the M3

Junction 1, and having seen the accident data there is not an existing accident issue

which would be exacerbated by the proposals.



8.101 In terms of the revised travel plan, the HA are satisfied that the modal split is correct,

that specific targets and measure have been detailed thoroughly, and that financial

incentives to use public transport will be provided for each residential unit.



8.102 The HA have confirmed the development will not have an adverse impact on the

strategic road network, and they have no objection to the proposed development

subject to a S106 agreement to ensure that the travel plan is monitored and targets

are achieved.







30

It is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of sustainable travel

and parking provision, and complies with policies CC2 and CC3 of the CS&P

DPD



Air Quality



8.103 The proposed development is within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). PPS23

“Planning and Pollution Control” advises that:



“any consideration of the quality of land, air or water and potential impacts arising from

development, possibly leading to impacts on health, is capable of being a material

planning consideration, in so far as it arises or may arise from or may affect any land

use”.



8.104 Appendix A lists a number of matters which may be material in the consideration of

individual planning applications where pollution considerations arise, including:



 the possible impact of potentially polluting development (both direct and indirect)

on land use, including health, the natural environment or general amenity

 the existing, and likely future, air quality in an area, including any AQMAs or other

areas where air quality is likely to be poor (including cumulative impacts of a

number of smaller developments)

 compliance with statutory environmental quality standards or objectives



8.105 Central Government advises that Annexe 1 to PPS 23 should be read alongside

PPS23 and carries equal weight. The advice makes it clear that air quality is capable

of being a material planning consideration, particularly where a development is

proposed inside an AQMA. However, it is not the case that all applications should be

refused. Local authorities, transport authorities and pollution control authorities should

work together to ensure development has a beneficial impact on the environment, by

exploring the possibility of securing mitigation measures that would allow the proposal

to proceed (through the use of S106 agreements).



8.106 Policy EN3 of the CS&P DPD states that the Council will seek to improve the air

quality of the Borough and minimise harm from poor air quality by a number of

measures including:



a) “supporting measures to encourage non-car based means of travel

b) supporting appropriate measures to reduce traffic congestion where it is a

contributor to existing areas of poor quality,

c) requiring an air quality assessment where development:

i. is in an Air Quality Management Area, and

ii. generates significant levels of pollution, or

iii. increases traffic volume or congestion, or

iv. is for non-residential uses of 1000m2 or greater, or

v. is for 10 or more dwellings, or

vi. involves development sensitive to poor air quality

d) refusing development where the adverse effects on air quality are of a

significant scale, either individually or in combination with other proposals, and

which are not outweighed by other important considerations or effects and

cannot be appropriately and effectively mitigated,

e) refusing development where the adverse effects of existing air quality on future

occupiers are of a significant scale which cannot be appropriately or effectively

mitigated and which are not outweighed by other material considerations.”





31

8.107 The air quality assessment submitted with the application concludes that nitrogen

dioxide concentrations exceeded the relevant standards in 2008 at a number of sites

in the locality. It predicts that these same locations would continue to exceed the

relevant air quality objectives in 2014. However, the report finds that concentration

levels for particulate matter concentrations were not exceeded in 2008, nor will they be

in 2014.



8.108 The report outlines a number of existing residential areas within 100m of the site which

may be affected by dust and slightly elevated concentrations of PM10. It concludes

mitigation measures would ensure that the development would be very unlikely to

adversely affecting those properties. Overall, the report findings are that predicted

changes in road traffic emissions as a result of the development would not have a

significant adverse impact on local air quality.



8.109 The Council’s pollution control officer has assessed all the technical information

submitted. She advises that the Transport Assessment has found that at peak times

the cumulative development would lead to between 0 to 9% increase in traffic flows

locally, with the biggest impacts at Green Street of between 6 to 9% increase. Data for

the air quality assessment shows that there would be up to 17% increase in daily

average traffic flows on part of Green Street, with a minimum 5% increase along other

sections of Green Street. It also indicates up to 12% increase in daily average traffic

flows on The Avenue due to the development.



8.110 Concern is expressed that an assumption has been made about a decrease in

background concentrations in future years through cleaner vehicle technologies. The

Council can not rely on the background concentration falling in order to meet the

National Air Quality Strategy objectives. Further issues have arisen around the

locations chosen for receptors (which have not covered local schools, the junction of

Staines Road East and The Avenue where the TA concedes that the existing priority

junction exceeds capacity, or the hotspot at the junction of Green Street and Nursery

Road).



8.111 The Council’s Environmental Health section are aware of the discussions which have

been taking place between the applicant, the Highways Agency (HA) and the County

Highway Authority (CHA), but have not had sight of the documentation and assessed

in detail. As such, the revised comments are given subject to receipt of the revised

travel plan and the CHA’s comments.



8.112 The transport assessment indicates that vehicle movements through Sunbury Cross

and its feeder junctions will increase due to the cumulative impacts of the proposed

residential development at The Avenue and the relocation of the London Irish Rugby

club to the Hazelwood golf course site. The air quality assessment has predicted an

increase in the levels of nitrogen dioxide at a number of the receptor locations. The

assessment concludes that the scale of the increase is not significant and has

therefore not proposed any additional mitigation measures. However, the Sunbury

Cross area, as well as being within our AQMA, is a particularly sensitive location with

regards to air quality. This is particularly so given the continued exceedances of the

relevant national air quality standard and the difficulties for the Council in reducing

levels at this hotspot.



8.113 In addition the assessment has not considered air quality impacts close to key

junctions in the locality and the model is likely to under-estimate congestion impacts of

reduced junction capacity (resulting from increased traffic flows) on air quality.

Therefore, we would be looking for the applicant to propose additional mitigation





32

measures (or a financial contribution) to offset air quality impacts prior to the

determination of the application.



8.114 Officers are concerned that there is only a 10% reduction from the maximum standard

on residential parking allocation, with likely additional parking on driveways and on-

street, and that non-residential parking provision has not been reduced from the

maximum standard. Concern is also expressed that parking in ‘non-residential’ and car

club/ car share spaces will not be controlled. Such unrestricted parking will not deter

use of the car as principal mode of transport for residents and visitors nor encourage

non-car modes.



8.115 One of the additional mitigation measures to be agreed with the applicant could be an

undertaking to further reduce the residential parking provision and an undertaking to

reduce the number of non-residential parking spaces (whilst safe-guarding the amount

of disabled parking spaces) by a given percentage by a defined future date. This

would need to be secured either by planning condition or as a target of the Travel

Plan.



8.116 Furthermore, if planning permission were granted conditions would be required

covering the following points:



i. an air quality assessment and approval of details relating to the proposed

biomass boiler;

ii. a dust mitigation method statement and action plan

iii. submission of details of allocation and enforcement of the proposed car

sharing/ car club and non-residential parking spaces;



Subject to a detailed assessment of the revised travel plan, it is considered that

the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on the local

air quality, and complies with policy EN3 of the CS&P DPD.





Flooding/Drainage



Flooding



8.117 The site falls within flood risk zone 1 where there is a low probability of flood risk with

less than a 1:1000 chance of flooding. No uses are precluded within zone 1 on

flooding grounds. However, in accordance with Policy LO1 of the CS&P DPD, a flood

risk assessment is required on larger sites within zone 1. Policy LO1 seeks to reduce

flood risk and its adverse affects on people and property by a number of means. The

applicants have submitted a flood risk assessment (FRA) for consideration by the

Environment Agency (EA). The EA originally raised an objection to the planning

application as the submitted FRA did not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be

made of the flood risks arising from the development.



8.118 However following the submission of additional information by the applicants, the EA

has confirmed that they have no objection to the application subject to the imposition

of a condition relating to drainage matters. The condition prevents development from

starting until a surface water drainage scheme for the site based on sustainable

drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological

context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

planning authority. The EA requires such scheme to be subsequently implemented in

accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The

scheme shall also include:



33

 A detailed assessment of the potential to infiltrate surface water to ground.

 Detailed calculations demonstrating the proposed system does not increase the

volume or rate of runoff leaving the site.

 Details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion.



8.119 The reason for this is to prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect

water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance. Should

ground conditions allow, EA’s preference for the disposal of surface water is via

infiltration to ground. If this is not feasible they would wish to further explore with the

designer and adopting authorities opportunities to drain the site via gravity avoiding the

use of pumps where possible.



Drainage



8.120 Thames Water (TW) has also been consulted on this planning application. It is the

responsibility of the applicant to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water

courses or a suitable sewer. TW recommends that the applicant should ensure that

storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or

off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site

drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary.

Connections are not permitted for the removal of ground water. Where the developer

proposes to discharge to a public sewer, prior approval from TW Developer Services

will be required. The reason for this is to ensure that the surface water discharge from

the site shall does not have a detrimental impact on the existing sewerage system.

Thames Water also makes comments on the disposal of Fats, Oils and Grease and

public sewers crossing the site.



8.121 TW also consider that the existing water supply infrastructure has insufficient capacity

to meet the additional demands for the proposed development. Critically, however,

they are not recommending refusal on this basis. They recommend that a condition be

imposed preventing development from commencing until impact studies of the

existing water supply infrastructure have been submitted to, and approved in writing

by, the local planning authority (in consultation with TW). The studies should

determine the magnitude of any new additional capacity required in the system and a

suitable connection point. The reason for this is to ensure that the water supply

infrastructure has sufficient capacity to cope with the additional demand. What is clear,

however, is that if TW do not give their consent to the outcome of the impact studies

then the development could not go ahead.



It is considered that the application is acceptable in flooding and drainage terms

and complies with policy LO1 of the CS&P DPD





Ecology/Nature conservation



8.122 The application site is not located within an area of ecological value as defined in the

CS&P DPD. Nevertheless, the applicant submitted an ecological and nature

conservation appraisal of the site and this has been considered by Natural England

and the Surrey Wildlife Trust. The report considers the ecological baseline, impacts

and associated effects that may result as a consequence of the construction of the

proposed development. The table below summarises the ecological interest of the site

and the wider area:



RECEPTOR VALUE



34

Designated Sites

SW London Waterbodies SPA & Ramsar site Very high

Knight & Bessborough Reservoirs SSSI High

Kempton Park Reservoirs SSSI (1385m) High

Kempton Nature Reserve LNR Medium

Kempton & Half Moon SNCI (790m) Medium

River Thames SNCI Medium



Site Habitats (ecological value)

Amenity grassland Negligible

Species-poor neutral grassland Negligible

Boundary features Negligible

Water feature Negligible

Standard trees low

Scrub Negligible

Buildings and hardstanding Negligible



Site Fauna

Badger Negligible

Water Vole Negligible

Bats Low (some trees have

moderate roost potential)

Reptiles Negligible

Amphibians Negligible

Breeding Birds Low

Terrestrial invertebrates Low



8.123 The assessment identified several potential impacts on ecological receptors including:



 Permanent land take – the development would result in the permanent loss of

large areas of amenity grassland, and species poor neutral grassland.

 Temporary land take – the creation of the green space and access would

potentially result in extensive disturbance to the remaining areas of grassland.

 Pollution of the ditch

 Potential removal of trees with dense ivy cover (potential summer bat roosts)

 Disturbance of bats roosting within mature trees by noise/lighting

 Disturbance of wintering waterfowl on the SW London Waterbodies SPA and

Ramsar site



8.124 In terms of construction impacts, the assessment makes the following conclusions:



 The nearest non statutory and statutory designated sites are sufficiently far away

to ensure they would not be adversely affected during construction.

 The site is 1.3km from the SW London Waterbodies SPA. It is necessary to

consider whether there are going to be any adverse affects on the SPA alone, or

combined with other plans or projects. The conclusion was the only possible

adverse impact would be noise/lighting from construction. A significant adverse

affect is unlikely.

 As many mature trees as possible will be retained.

 The permanent loss of large areas of species poor grassland, amenity grassland

and relatively new trees and shrubs is a severe adverse impact (i.e. significant

areas are lost), but the impact is of negligible significance.







35

 The temporary loss of the above areas has a moderate adverse affect, but the

impact is of negligible significance.

 The habitats on the site are of negligible value for all fauna, except boundary trees

which are of some value for bats.

 The habitats on the site are of low value. The effect of this permanent loss is not

significant and no mitigation is required.

 The temporary loss of some area of these habitats is not significant.

 Site clearance during the nesting season could have a severe adverse impact but

they are protected by the wildlife and Countryside Act.

 Lighting and noise could affect bats.



8.125 In terms of operational impacts, the report identifies the following:



 The physical disturbance of trees with potential as bat roosts will not be adversely

affected.

 The impact of street lighting on bats is significant, and mitigation is required.

 Recreational disturbance of wintering waterfowl is possible on the nearest the

SPA. One of the SSSI has no public access, and the other has controlled access.

Disturbance by new residents would be negligible.



8.126 Mitigation and monitoring measures include:



 Site clearance and demolition to take place outside of the bird nesting season.

 Compounds sited away from trees with bat roosting potential.

 Precautions when designing the detailed lighting scheme to protect bats.



8.127 Policy EN8 of the CS&P DPD seeks to protect and improve the landscape and

biodiversity through a number of means, including safeguarding sites of international

and national importance, ensuring that new development avoids harm to nature

biodiversity and refusing permission where development would have a significant

harmful impact on nature conservation value.



8.128 In terms of biodiversity enhancements which are encouraged from new developments

under PPS9 ‘Biodiversity and Geological Impacts’, the following are proposed:



 Wildlife nesting boxes

 Locally native tree/scrub planting

 Rough grassland borders

 Retention ponds

 Monitoring of long term enhancement measures



8.129 Natural England has advised that it is their view that, either alone or in combination

with other plans or projects, the proposals are not likely to have a significant effect on

the South West London Waterbodies SPA. They recommend that permission may be

granted (subject to other planning considerations) under the terms of the Habitats

Regulations. They also make a number of comments relating to action if protected

species are possibly present, and measures for biodiversity enhancements.



8.130 Surrey Wildlife Trust are satisfied with the information on the existing habitats and the

given opinion on the likely status of legally protected species on the site, and support

the mitigation and monitoring measures. The proposed landscaping offers the

opportunity to restore or enhance biodiversity. They also comment that a Management

Plan should be provided.





36

8.131 It is clear from the information above that the site is generally of limited habitat interest

and that the development would be unlikely to give rise to significant adverse effects.

If the application was acceptable in all other respects, it would be possible to add

conditions to protect the ecology of the site.



It is considered that the application is acceptable in ecological terms and

complies with EN8 of the CS&P DPD.





Archaeology



8.132 Saved Local Plan Policy BE26, requires an agreed scheme of archaeological

assessment or evaluation with any new development proposal for a site larger than

0.4ha. The applicant’s archaeological consultants have submitted a report which has

been considered by the County Archaeologist. The Archaeology Section within the

Cultural Heritage Assessment submitted with this application forms the first stage of

the archaeological scheme of work necessary to safeguard any archaeology that may

be present on the site. The County Archaeologist considers that the assessment is

satisfactory and notes that the site has the potential to contain archaeological

deposits, particularly from prehistoric period.



8.133 To test this potential, the Assessment recommends that there should be further

archaeological work (evaluation) across the site. The Assessment recommends that

the evaluation should initially encompass archaeological monitoring of any

geotechnical investigation, both to determine stratigraphic levels and to help clarify the

impact of groundworking involved in the creation of past and current playing surfaces;

and be followed by a programme of geophysical survey and trial trenching designed to

determine, as far as is possible, the location, extent, date, character, condition,

significance and quality of any archaeological remains. The County Archaeologist is

happy with the recommendations, and the results of the evaluation will enable suitable

mitigation measures to be proposed.



8.134 These mitigation measures may involve more detailed excavation of any

archaeological remains identified, but in the event of a find of exceptional significance,

preservation in situ is the preferred option. Given the sites potential and the distinct

possibility that deposits are present which would warrant preservation in situ, the

County Archaeologist recommends that the evaluation be carried out and the results

submitted prior to determination of any decision on planning permission. This is in line

with the guidance provided in PPS5 “Planning for the Historic Environment”, and

requires that full and proper consideration is given to the likely impact of the

development proposal on archaeological remains. This has not been undertaken and

the County Archaeologist considers that there is insufficient information submitted to

enable him to make an informed planning decision.



The proposal has not been able to demonstrate that it will not have an adverse

impact on archaeology and conflicts with policy BE26 of the saved Local Plan,

and should be refused on this basis.





Contamination



8.135 Policy EN15 of the CS&P DPD is concerned with development on land affected by

contamination. The Council will expect proposals to be accompanied by an

assessment of risk from contamination “in all cases where the proposal is for housing

or other forms of development which are particularly sensitive to contamination”. The



37

applicant has submitted a report on contamination and hazardous materials which has

been assessed by the Council’s Pollution Control Officer. The review of the

information and data available to Pollution Control Officer revealed additional sources

of potential contamination not mentioned in the Environmental Statement and the

Desk top Study Report prepared by the Scott Wilson. These include a former large

pond (currently infilled) – 45m from the site boundary, three smaller gravel pits – on or

within 60m from the site and a depot (certain history of soil and groundwater

contamination) – 170m north-west of the site.



8.136 In addition, there is not available sufficient information describing soil conditions

beneath the site. Due to the size of the development and high sensitivity of the future

use, the Pollution Control Officer requires additional information to be submitted prior

to the commencement of the development. As a consequence the officer

recommends a condition be imposed requiring the developer to submit additional

information including a comprehensive desk top study and a site investigation and

remediation if deemed necessary. In addition The Pollution control Officer agrees with

the mitigation measures for site control and demolition of the building but points out

that the validation sampling for any subsoil and topsoil imported to the site including

sampling frequency must be agreed with Environmental Health prior to these works

commencing.



On this basis, it is considered the scheme complies with policy EN15 of the

CS&P DPD.





Renewable Energy



8.137 Policy CC1 of the CS&P DPD supports the provision of renewable energy, energy

efficiency and promotes sustainable development. This will be by requiring residential

development of one or more dwellings and other new development exceeding 100m2

to:



 Optimise design, layout and orientation of development to minimise energy use

 Include measures to provide at least 10% of the development’s energy demand

from on site renewable energy sources, and

 Encouraging measures including attaining high energy efficiency and minimum

impact on the environment to at least Code for Sustainable Homes – 3 star or

BREEAM “very good” standard, encouraging high standards of sustainable

construction and encouraging appropriate freestanding renewable energy

schemes.



8.138 The applicants have considered various different ways in which to produce renewable

energy, such as photovoltaics, solar hot water systems, ground source heating, wind

turbines and combined heat and power systems. They have concluded that the best

option would be a biomass boiler installed within the care home of the site. This could

generate just over 12% of the site’s total energy demand. The Council’s sustainability

and waste officer has confirmed that the biomass boiler does meet the renewable

requirement. However, the officer does not agree with the applicant’s assessment

which rules out a Combined Heat and Power plant (CHP), and considers that a

biomass fuelled CHP unit would be preferable. Regrettably, I do not consider that this

could be insisted upon.



8.139 In addition all new dwellings will be designed to a Code Level 4 of the code for

Sustainable Homes (which covers issues such as energy, water, building materials,

surface water run off, pollution, health and well being, management and ecology). The



38

current requirement under building regulations is Code 3. By 2013 there must be a

44% energy efficiency improvement of the dwelling compared to 2006 (Part L Building

Regulations) and this is an equivalent standard of code level 4 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes



8.140 Careful consideration has also been given to the layout of the proposed development,

and the orientation of buildings within the site has sought to maximise the opportunity

for passive solar gain, as advocated by policy CC1. The applicant has also confirmed

their intention to provide storage for recyclables as well as composting and waste

facilities, although this would need to be considered in detail at the reserved matters

stage (were permission to be granted).



8.141 I am satisfied with the proposals and accordingly a condition could be imposed relating

to renewable energy. This will require the applicant to submit a detailed report for

each phase of development which will include a technical breakdown of the energy

consumptions of the development, the associated CO² emissions and the

methodology used to ensure compliance with policy with providing at least 10% of the

development’s energy demand from on-site renewable energy sources.



On this basis, it is considered the scheme complies with policy CC1 of the CS&P

DPD.





Planning Benefits



8.142 In the consideration of any planning application, the Planning Authority may consider

whether a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Planning Act can

include obligations which could make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Guidance on this is contained within DCLG Circular 05/05 “Planning Obligations”. The

circular advice makes it clear that:



A planning obligation must be:

i. relevant to planning;

ii. necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning

terms;

iii. directly related to the proposed development;

iv. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed

development; and

v. reasonable in all other respects.



The use of planning obligations must be governed by the fundamental principle that

planning permission may not be bought or sold. It is therefore not legitimate for

unacceptable development to be permitted because of benefits or inducements offered

by a developer which are not necessary to make the development acceptable in

planning terms.



8.143 In the consideration of this application, the following matters are put forward by the

applicant to form part of a Section 106 Agreement:



 Affordable housing – 20 units; 13 rented, 7 shared ownership all of various sizes

 Off site highway works/highway payments

 Public access to the open space including use of the LEAP

 A mechanism to link this application and the proposals at Hazelwood Golf course

under 09/00842/OUT to ensure that housing is not commenced until the leisure

facility is established



39

 Travel Plan

 Mitigation measures in the Planning Supporting Statement.



However, none of these measures make the development which is considered to be

unacceptable, acceptable in planning terms.





Public consultation



Issues addressed



Objectors comments regarding:



1. the ability of the Council is able to meet its housing requirements in other ways

2. the lack of a real justification for residential development to fund the rugby

facility

3. the lack of justification for the loss of an area of Important Urban Open Space

4. overdevelopment of the site

5. density and mix of housing

6. lack of evidence that a care home is needed

7. concerns over the deliverability of the surgery

8. the additional burden placed on the local road network resulting in traffic

congestion and adverse impacts on highway safety

9. the adverse impact on air quality

10. the inability of the existing drainage and sewerage network to cope

11. the further strain on existing infrastructure



and supporters comments regarding:



1. the private nature of the existing Important Urban Open Space

2. new truly accessible public open space at the site



have all been dealt with in the main body of the report.



Objectors other comments



8.144 Objectors have commented that London Irish Holdings Ltd had the opportunity to get

the site designated for residential development as part of the Local Development

Framework (LDF), but did not do so. Developers of potential sites are not required to

put forward sites to be allocated as part of the LDF process. Whilst the Council was

aware of the Clubs general aspirations to expand, it is understood they were not

necessarily concrete at that point in time. In addition, the Council had designated the

site as an area of Important Urban Open Space and would therefore have strongly

opposed and argued against the site being designated for residential purposes.



8.145 The other main concern revolves round what will actually be built on the site (if

permission is given). Local residents fear that London Irish will not develop the site

and will sell it on with the benefit of outline planning permission. As stated in the

section on design and layout, the applicants have submitted a design code. Whilst this

can be conditioned or even included within a S106 agreement, there is nothing to stop

a developer from seeking permission to change the design principles at a later date. It

is obviously for the Council to assess whether a different design approach would be

acceptable on the site or not.







40

Supporters other comments



8.146 A number of these relate to the positive benefits of the proposed ‘Centre of

Excellence’, and are covered in that committee report.



8.147 A significant number of supporters refer to the fact that Sunbury is the spiritual home

of London Irish, that the club is committed to the local community/area, that the need

to expand is essential to the continuing success of the club, and that London Irish

contribute economically to the area. None of this is disputed, and the Council

recognises the positive contribution the club makes to the area. However, this needs

to be carefully assessed against the significant policy issues which arise from the

proposed development. The positive aspects referred to above some weight, but do

not outweigh the negative aspects of the current scheme.



8.148 The Council acknowledges that London Irish engaged in an extensive public

consultation process, and the discussions which took place with the local community

were welcomed. It is also clear that the proposals changed significantly as a result.

However, the Council has to determine the application as now submitted in the light of

planning policy. As submitted the scheme fails on a significant number of issues.





Conclusions and Recommendation



8.149 Whilst certain points of detail are in isolation acceptable e.g. flooding, ecology,

contamination and renewable energy, the principle of the development in relation to

loss of open space is contrary to development plan policy. Indeed it represents a clear

departure from the CS&P DPD. In addition, the proposal would result in the loss of a

recreational facility for which there is real demand.



8.150 The proposal fails to provide an adequate justification in terms of housing need and

current planned housing provision to set aside the Council’s policy to protect existing

sports facilities and protected urban open space. In addition, it would result in an

unacceptable loss of an outdoor sports facility for which there is a clear demand.



8.151 Looking at the detailed layout of the proposal, it is evident that in a number of

locations, garden sizes are below the Council’s guidelines as set out in Supplementary

Planning Guidance. This is indicative of a cramped form of development



8.152 The provision of affordable housing at 10.3% is unacceptably low, and no arguments

have been put forward to satisfy the Council that this requirement should be set aside.

The significant shortfall does not meet the needs of the borough or development plan

policy.



8.153 The layout as proposed would have an unacceptable impact on protected trees and

landscaping on the boundary of the site, and a number of the garden sizes do not

meet the Council’s guidelines as set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance. This is

indicative of a cramped form of development.



8.154 In terms of infrastructure, the proposal would place additional pressure on education

facilities in the area, for which no financial contribution has been agreed.



8.155 Likewise the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the proposals would be

acceptable in archaeological terms.







41

8.156 The Council has considered the potential benefits of the proposal in terms of the new

neighbourhood park and the benefits which would come from improved sports facilities

for the public if the Hazelwood scheme were acceptable. This has been weighed up

against the issues of important urban open space, lack of housing need, lack of

affordable housing, layout/form of development and concerns over education and

archaeology. It has concluded that the latter are more significant. The application is

therefore recommended for refusal for the reasons set out above.



8 Recommendation



REFUSE for the following reasons:



1. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of existing

protected open space within the urban area which makes a significant

contribution to the quality and character of the urban area by virtue of its size,

both on its own and in combination with the adjoining urban open space, and

its prominence, layout and position in relation to built development in the

locality. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies SP6 and EN4 of the

Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.



2. The proposal fails to provide an adequate justification in terms of housing need

and current planned housing provision to set aside the Council’s policy to

protect existing sports facilities and protected urban open space. It is contrary

to Policies SP6 and EN4 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.



3. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of an outdoor

sports facility for which there is a clear demand. It is contrary to Policies SP6

and EN4 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.



4. The proposal would provide inadequate affordable housing to contribute

towards meeting the needs of the Borough and the applicants have failed to

adequately justify why 50% of affordable housing cannot be provided on site.

The proposal is, therefore, contrary to Policies SP6 and EN4 of the Core

Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.



5. The proposed development would, by virtue of the inadequate garden sizes of

some of the two bedroom dwellings, result in a layout which would appear

cramped and out of character with the surrounding area which is spacious in its

nature, contrary to Policies SP6 and EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies

DPD 2009 and SPG.



6. The proposed development pays insufficient regard to and would have an

unacceptable and detrimental impact on the existing trees and landscaping

contrary to Policies SP6 and EN1 of the Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009.



7. The proposal would place additional pressures on educational needs within the

immediate area, which have not been adequately mitigated. As such, the

development is contrary to Policies SP5 and CO2 of the Core Strategy and

Policies DPD. 2009



8. The applicants have failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County

Archaeologist that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on any

possible archaeological remains which may exist on site, contrary to Saved

Local Plan Policy BE26, and PPS5 “Planning for the Historic Environment”





42

Informatives



1. The applicant is advised that in reaching this decision the Council has had regard

to the following policies and/or proposals in the development plan. Each is

considered relevant to the decision.



Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies DPD 2009:

SP2, HO1, HO3, SPG on affordable housing, HO4, HO5, EN4, (allocated sites B3

and C9), SP6, EN1, LO1, SPG on design of new residential development and

extensions, EN3, EN5, EN15, CC1, CC2, CC3, SP5, CO2



Saved Policies of Spelthorne Borough Local Plan, April 2001:

BE26



South East Plan 2009:

H3, LF4



National Policy Guidance:

PPS1, supplement to PPS1, PPS3, PPS5, PPS 9, PPG13, PPG17, PPS23,

PPS25





2 The material circumstances of the case, including site history, location and

impact on amenities were considered. In addition consideration was given to

the results of consultees and public consultation and independent expert

opinion.





LIST OF APPENDICES



1. Site Plan



2. Existing layout



3. Proposed Layout



4. Consultation responses









43