0 SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE by StuartSpruce

VIEWS: 136 PAGES: 12

									                         SURREY HEATH BOROUGH COUNCIL

                       PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE

                          Report of the Head of Built Environment
                           to be considered at the meeting held on


                                         30 May 2006


COMPUTER RECOMMENDATION ABBREVIATIONS


AA, AB, AC, AF, AJ, AQ or AX Approve

AK Approve subject to legal agreement

RA, RB, RC,,RF, RJ, RQ or RX Refuse

DN – That the application be deferred and at the expiration of the neighbour
notification/Parish Council/advertisement period(s) for response and subject to the receipt of
no adverse comments not previously considered, the Head of Built Environment be
authorised to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions/following
conditions.

DE – That the application be deferred and upon the proposal being to the satisfaction of
County Highway Authority and/or in respect of Drainage, the Head of Built Environment be
authorised to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions/following
conditions.

DD – Defer and delegate subject to above.

DC – Defer for further consideration.

DR – Defer Refuse subject to appropriate reasons.

VR – Oral report.

DA – Defer for appeal.

FD – Finally disposed/Withdrawn


NOTE

Letters, petitions, etc. either objecting to or supporting proposals contained in this report and
the attached agenda, will be available in the Committee Room for Members’ inspection prior
to the meeting.


                                                0
01             2005/0028                    Reg Date 18/03/2005                   Town


      LOCATION:             WHITEHILL FARM, KINGS RIDE, CAMBERLEY, SURREY
      PROPOSAL:             Reserved matters application pursuant to outline planning
                            permission SU/96/0494 dated 7th October 2003 as varied by
                            planning permission SU/04/0731 dated 14th October 2004 for
                            the erection of outdoor and indoor recreational facilities and
                            associated parking areas (all matters being considered).
                            (Additional plan rec`d 13.4.2005).(Additional info rec'd
                            6.9.05).(Amended plans and an additional plan rec'd 30.8.05).
                            (Amended plans rec'd 6.3.06).(Amended plans rec'd 29.3.06).
      TYPE:                 Reserved Matters
      APPLICANT:            Le Spa Limited
      OFFICER:              Miss Jane Baldwin

This application would normally be considered by the Head of Built Environment under the
Council's Scheme of Delegation to Officers. However Cllr Pedder as local Member has
requested that this application be considered by the Planning Applications Committee.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The site of 7.10 hectares is located on the east side of Kings Ride and is also known as
Barossa Common. It comprises a mixture of woodland and open grassland. There is a
significant difference in levels within the site with the northern part of the site being the
highest point in the form of a wooded knoll and the southern part of the site being lowest
which is also wooded. The central part of the site comprises the grassland area. Vehicular
access to the site is from Kings Ride. To the south and west of the site there are established
residential areas. Immediately to the north of the site is a paddock with further residential
development beyond. To the east of the site there is the countryside area of Old Dean
Common which is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the
Thames Basins Heath Special Protection Area (SPA). The site is designated as being within
countryside beyond the Green Belt with the south east corner of the site also being designated
as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It is to be noted that housing to the
north and west of the site was historically within the control of the Ministry of Defence where
it was possible to have limited access through the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst.
However this housing is now largely in private hands and all traffic from the residential area
uses Kings Ride for access purposes. The site is some 200 metres from the junction with
College Ride and 750 metres from the junction with London Road (A30). The site is subject
to Tree Preservation Order 7/86.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
There is a varied planning history on this site which is available for inspection on the
planning file. The following applications are considered to be the most relevant to the
consideration of this proposal:

SU/96/0494 - Outline application for a recreational facility incorporating outdoor and indoor
leisure activities (all matters reserved). This was approved on 28 April 1998 and was subject
to a legal agreement to secure the management of the ecologically sensitive areas of the site
and public access through the site from Kings Ride to land south of Old Dean Common.
There were no restrictions imposed in relation to floor space, building footprint, hours of
                                                 1
operation or use of the site. This application site also included land which was designated as
a housing allocation site. This development has been built and is now known as Woodlark
Glade.

SU/00/0170 - Variation of condition 2 attached to planning permission SU/96/0494 to extend
the period of submission of reserved matters for a further 3 years (until 28 April 2004).
Approved 4 July 2000.

SU/01/0752 - Variation of condition 1 attached to planning permission SU/01/0170 with
regard to phasing of development. Approved 3 October 2001. This permission excluded the
area now known as Woodlark Glade and was subject to the following condition:

1 a) Application for approval of reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning
     Authority by 28 April 2004.
  b) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either within 5 years of the
      date of this permission or within 2 years of the dated of approval of the last of the
     reserved matters to be approved.
  c) The development authorised by this consent is limited to the area which is edged
      in red on the attached plan reference 98.108/D.

SU/02/0974 - Reserved matters application pursuant to planning permission SU/00/0170 for
the erection of outdoor and indoor recreational facilities and associated parking areas.
Approved 7 October 2003. This development included the erection of a two storey building
with the second storey within the roof space. The approved building had a floor area of 2387
sq metres with a maximum ridge height of 13 metres, reducing to central ridge height of 11
metres. It was some 38.5 metres wide and just under 36 metres in depth. It was of a rustic
appearance with timber clad elevations and tile roof. The building incorporated a swimming
pool, gymnasiums, sauna, spa, changing facilities, 10 treatment rooms, sun beds, studio,
health and beauty relaxation area and lounge areas. Outside a swimming pool and terrace
were shown adjacent to the building with 4 tennis courts beyond. A trim trail (footpath) was
shown through the wooded knoll at the northern end of the site. Vehicular access to the site
was from the existing vehicular access with associated modifications as required by the
County Highway Authority. 74 car parking spaces were provided with associated cycle
parking. The proposed membership was indicated at 1600 at maturity (3 years) to be served
by 60-80 staff.

SU/04/0731 - Variation to condition 1 attached to planning permission SU/01/0752 dated 3
October 2001 to provide application for approval of reserved matters to be made within 6
months of the date of the determination of this application with the development to begin
within 1 year of the date of the approval of the last reserved matters or by 28 April 2006.
Approved 14 October 2004.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This reserved matters application originally proposed the erection of a two storey building
with the majority of the second storey within the roof space. The building was shown to have
a floor area of 2417 square metres with a maximum ridge height of 11 metres and a typical
ridge height of 9 metres. It was about 68.5 metres wide (including roof overhang) and just
under 31 metres in depth. The building was shown to incorporate a swimming pool, health
and beauty treatment rooms, spa, sauna, steam room, gymnasium, dance/exercise studios,
changing facilities, a lounge/restaurant area, ancillary office accommodation and 14
bedrooms. Outside a swimming pool, four external treatment rooms, a lake, timber walkway
were proposed with 3 tennis courts beyond. A revised trim trail (footpath) was shown
                                                2
through the wooded knoll at the northern end of the site. Vehicular access to the site was to
be from the existing vehicular access. 75 car parking spaces were to be provided with
associated cycle parking. The proposed membership is indicated at 1600 at maturity (3
years) to be served by 60 staff, 40 of whom would be full time (split between two shifts of
20)

Concern was raised about various elements of the scheme and amended plans were
subsequently received. The height, appearance, width and depth of the building remained as
originally proposed. The number of bedrooms were reduced from 14 to 7 with an increase in
7 treatment rooms, the external treatment rooms and lake were deleted and replaced by a
grassed terrace with a reptile bund being proposed at the northern end of the tennis courts.
The tennis courts were moved to 2 metres to the east to provide a 5 metre buffer zone. Some
minor alterations to the vehicular access were shown in terms of and parking provision
remain unchanged.

Given the objection of English Nature and ongoing concern relating to the design of the
building, the applicant submitted further details in support of the application. This related to
the removing the public access clause from the legal agreement, information relating to noise
and lighting impacts on the SPA, the replacement of areas of glazing with wooden cladding,
the use of oak framing to all door and windows and alterations to the design of glazing within
the roof slope.

CONSULTATIONS
The County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal subject to appropriate
conditions in respect to the access, parking within the site during the construction period,
cycle provision and an appropriate wheel washing plant being in place to clean construction
vehicles before they return to the highway.

The Project Engineer Drainage raises no objection to either the original or revised proposal
subject to the imposition of informatives relating to land drainage and the provision of mains
drainage to the site.

The Planning Policy Manager raised concern in terms of the original design of the building
and the potential impact on the SPA. No objection is raised to the proposal following receipt
of the revised amended plans and additional information.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has made no comment on this application.

Surrey Wildlife Trust raised concerns about the original plans in respect of the construction
of the lake in relation to the hydrology of the local area, inadequate buffer zone (3m instead
of 5m), insufficient information submitted concerning the destination of spoil removed to
facilitate the new lake, insufficient details of the adder hotel, relationship of the tennis courts
to the reptile area, the reptile bund was missing from the site plan and inadequate information
relating to the ecological management plan for the site. It also advised that no flood lighting
should be approved in respect of this development, a further badger survey should be
undertaken before any works were commenced on site and no tree or shrub clearance should
be undertaken during the bird nesting season. The Trust has commented on the amended
plans and raises no objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to protection to
species during construction, the prevention of surface water run off and the maintenance of
boundary fences.


                                                 3
English Nature raised no objection to the original plans. However it raised objection to the
amended plans on grounds of access into the SPA from the car park proposed to serve the
development, impact of lighting from the car park and noise impacts on the SPA . Further
details were submitted by the applicant in terms of lighting and noise together with an
undertaking to enter into a legal agreement amending the clause in the original legal
agreement such as to prevent public access. English Nature subsequently raises no objection
to the proposal either on its own or in combination with other plans or projects.

The Environment Agency raised no objection to the original plans nor did it raise objection to
the amended plans.

Thames Water commented on the original and revised plans and advised that public sewers
cross the site.

The Defence Land Agent has not commented on this application.

REPRESENTATIONS
This application has been advertised. 44 representations were received objecting to the
original plans on the following grounds:

1) Additional traffic would worsen the situation on Kings Ride, a major bus and school
    route, which is already a highly congested route particularly during peak periods;
2) appropriateness of development in a quiet residential area;
3) proposed development will interfere with peaceful enjoyment of the neighbourhood,
    homes and gardens by virtue of increased levels of disturbance;
4) expansion plans in the future;
5) there is no need for another leisure centre in Camberley;
6) Kings Ride is an inappropriate road for leisure development;
7) air pollution from idling cars waiting in traffic;
8) additional traffic, parking and vehicle movements will add to existing hazards on Kings
    Ride;
9) conflict with development plan policy;
10) Kings Ride is an accident blackspot, it cannot cope with the existing level of traffic and
    the proposal will make this worse;
11) inadequate car parking provision in the area and use of Kings Ride by workers in
    Camberley town centre results in on street parking which in turn results in Kings Ride
    being a single carriageway road;
12) impact on children safety from additional traffic;
13) use of adjoining roads as “rat runs” to avoid sitting in traffic;
14) impact of construction traffic;
15) change of use from a rural to an urban function will reduce the opportunities for flora and
    fauna to flourish;
16) nothing can be done to Kings Ride to improve the traffic situation;
17) site should remain as green field;
18) impact on local wildlife;
19) non military traffic cannot use the RMA to exit the area leaving Kings Ride the only
    access route;
20) use of land for informal archery contravenes designation of part of the site as an SNCI;
21) potential impact on the free flow of surface water;
22) out of character with the area;
23) the proposal will invite more anti social behaviour/crime;
24) impact on drainage system;
                                                4
25) membership numbers can only increase;
26) potential levels of use and parking requirements associated with Ecology Centre;
27) use of lounge/restaurant facilities separate from recreational use;
28) degradation of Kings Ride as a result of additional traffic;
29) smaller building would be more appropriate in this location;
30) impact on pedestrian users of Kings Ride;
31) inadequate car parking provision within the site;
32) proposal varies significantly from outline approval;
33) not of benefit to local people;
34) figures quoted for daily spa visitors are unrealistic;
35) no provision has been made for staff car parking;
36) a new road should be constructed from the Jolly Farmer roundabout up part of Maultway
    North and then to the rear of the Old Dean estate to improve traffic flows in the area;
37) lack of up to date traffic survey;
38) proposal varies from previous reserved matters approval; and
39) inappropriate design of the building.

One representation in support of the original plans was also received.

At the time of the preparation of this report, 14 representations have been received objecting
to the amended plans. The following issues in addition to those outlined above have been
raised:

1) The use of the outside pool will generate levels of noise which will reflect into nearby
   houses and surrounds;
2) permission for the outside pool makes nonsense of the efforts to preserve adjacent
   wildlife;
3) outside pools are ecologically undesirable for they use large amounts of energy and
   chemicals;
4) concern about the provision of bedrooms; and
5) accessibility to ecological display. .

PLANNING ISSUES
The site is located within Countryside Beyond the Green Belt. Policies G4, G9, G16, G17,
G20, G21, G22, G24, RE3, RE10, RE12, RE13, RE14, R2, M7, M8 and M12 of the Surrey
Heath Local Plan 2000 are the most relevant to the consideration of this proposal. In addition
Policies LO4, SE2, SE3, SE4, SE7, DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004 are also
relevant.

Policy G4 seeks to ensure that new development respects the scale, mass, density, quality and
character of adjoining development. Policy G9 seeks to incorporate energy saving measures
in development proposals. Policy G16 seeks to safeguard the character and quality of the
water environment. Policy G17 seeks to minimise the risk of flooding from surface water run
off. Policy G20 will not permit development which has an unacceptable noise impact.
Policy G21 seeks to ensure that light pollution does not have an unacceptable impact upon
the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining residents. Policy G22 will not permit
development which has an adverse impact on protected species or their habitats. Policy G24
seeks to retain any tree which make a significant contribution to the character of the area.
Policy RE3 seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and prevent development which
would be harmful to rural character, nature conservation interests, interfere with the safe
movement of traffic or give rise to difficulties in the provision of public services. Policy
RE10 will not permit development which is not directly connected or necessary to the
                                                 5
management of the (p)SPA and cSAC and which adversely affects the integrity of the site
unless there is no alternative solution and there are overriding public interest for the
development. Policy RE12 will not permit development within or affecting SNCI unless it
can be shown that it will not materially harm the nature conservation or wildlife interest of
the site. Policy RE13 requires the retention and enhancement of sites and features which
contribute to the nature conservation interest of the area. Policy RE14 seeks to ensure that
development respects the character of the countryside landscape. Policy R2 seeks to ensure
that impact of new recreational development on environmental interests such as the
landscape, nature conservation and residential amenity is minimised. Policy M7 seeks to
ensure that new development provides parking in accordance with adopted standards. Policy
M8 seeks to ensure that development complies with current highway design standards.

Policy LO4 seeks to protect the openness and intrinsic qualities of the countryside from
development which does not respect its character. Policy SE2 seeks to promote renewable
energy and energy conservation. Policy SE3 seeks to reduce the impact of development on
flood risk. Policy SE4 seeks to ensure that the design of development should contribute to
the quality of urban and rural areas whilst retaining features that contribute to a sense of
place. Policy SE7 seeks to protect land or water habitats from inappropriate development.
Policy DN2 only permits development where it is, or can be made, compatible with the
transport infrastructure in the area. Policy DN3 states that development proposals should
comply with the aim of promoting sustainable travel choices.

The main issues to be addressed by this report are as follows:

a) Whether the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms and if so whether the
   impact of the development is acceptable on the character of the area;
b) whether the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers;
c) whether the proposal is acceptable in transportation and highway safety terms; and
d) whether the proposal is acceptable in nature conservation terms.

a) Whether the proposed development is acceptable in policy terms and if so whether the
   impact of the development is acceptable on the character of the area.

The principle of an indoor and outdoor recreational facility on this site was established by the
grant of outline planning permission SU/96/0494 dated 28 April 1998. A detailed form of
this facility was established by the grant of the reserved matters application in October 2003.
The main question to be addressed in this part of the report therefore is whether the proposed
scheme would be acceptable in this countryside location having regard to the existing
permissions on this site and all other relevant material considerations.

The proposed building is considered to be significantly different to that approved under
reference SU/02/0974. It is some 2-4 metres lower than the approved scheme and some 5
metres shorter in depth. In respect of these elements the proposed building would have a
lesser impact on rural character than the approved scheme. However it is significantly wider
(including roof overhang) by some 30 metres and the original building was shown to be built
with predominantly glazed elevations with a tiled roof. Originally concern was raised by
Officers about the design of the building with particular reference to the predominant use of
glazing as the external material for the walls, which combined with minimal detailing would
have resulted in a visually stark building which would have represented an unduly harsh
linear urban form in this countryside location. The applicant has subsequently amended the
appearance of the building and has reduced the amount of glass that was being proposed in
favour of more traditional materials. The amended design is now considered acceptable
                                                6
subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions to prevent excessive light pollution from the
building. This reserved matters application is therefore considered to be acceptable having
regard to Development Plan policies. (G4, R2 and RE3 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000
and Policies LO4 and SE4 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.

b) Whether the proposal would be detrimental to the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

Woodlark Glade adjoins the site to the south west. College Close/Whitehill Close adjoins the
site to the south east. 101-125 odds Kings Ride are opposite the site to the west. The
proposal indicates a pattern and form of use which is not dissimilar to that approved under
reference SU/02/0974. It is acknowledged that the proposal will have an impact on adjoining
residents by virtue of increased vehicular activity on Kings Ride and also activity within the
site. However, having regard to the previous planning permission and the ability to impose
an hours of operation condition, the impact on adjoining residents would not be so harmful
such that planning permission should be refused on these grounds.

c) Whether the proposal is acceptable in transportation and highway safety terms.

The principle of the vehicular access onto Kings Ride, the level of car parking required to
serve the proposed use and the ability/capacity of the highway network to accommodate the
level of traffic movements associated with the proposed use was established by SU/02/0974.
As the access, parking provision and membership/staff numbers with associated traffic
generation remain largely as previously approved and given that the County Highway
Authority raises no objection to this current proposal the development is considered to be
acceptable within the terms of Policies M7 and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000 and
Policies DN2 and DN3 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.

d) Whether the proposal is acceptable in nature conservation terms.

The site has a common boundary with Old Dean Common which forms part of the Thames
Basins Heath Special Protection Area. The south east corner of the site is also designated as
an SNCI. The site provides habitats for various protected species including adders,
slowworms, grass snakes, common lizards and bats. The original legal agreement required
the submission of an ecological management plans to include field survey, mapping of tree
groups, identification of species, topographic information, appraisal and analysis of
ecological areas and areas of high ecological importance. These works are ongoing and are
being undertaken in consultation with English Nature and Surrey Wildlife Trust. With regard
to the amended plans and additional information submitted by the application in relation to
protected species and habitat, Surrey Wildlife Trust raises no objection to the proposal
subject to safeguards for the protected species and SNCI being put in place. These
safeguards may be the subject of conditions. On this basis no objection is raised to the
proposal on grounds of protected species or impact on the SNCI.

The approved outline application was assessed against the provisions of the Surrey Heath
Local Plan 1994. Policy R9 in this document related to the provision of a recreational facility
at Whitehill Farm. This policy also encouraged public access through the site from Kings
Ride to Land South of Old Dean Common. Provision for public access was included within
the terms of the legal agreement signed pursuant to SU/96/0494. However since that time
there has been a material change in circumstances in that the adjoining land has been
confirmed as part of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and, given the ground nesting habits of
the three protected birds, public access is to be discouraged. Given this and having regard to
the advice of English Nature it is considered appropriate to amend the original legal
                                                 7
agreement to remove the requirement for public access. Subject to the applicant entering into
an appropriate legal agreement to achieve this and the imposition of conditions relating to
boundary fencing to provide a physical barrier onto the SPA and lighting, no objection is
raised to the proposal in terms of harm to the SPA.

RECOMMENDATION
The application be deferred and upon completion of a modification to the existing legal
agreement Clause 7 (i) to restrict access from the application site to Old Dean Common (at no
cost to the Council) the Head of Built Environment be authorised to grant planning
permission subject to conditions as set out below.

   1.    The reiteration of conditions imposed on outline consent reference SU96/0494 as
         varied by planning permissions SU00/0170, and SU04/0731.

         Reason: These are reserved matters following the grant of outline planning
         permission.

   2.    Details of the glazed areas of the building hereby approved shall be submitted to
         and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of
         development. Once approved the glazing shall be installed in accordance with the
         approved plans and thereafter retained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning
         Authority.

         Reason: To minimise light pollution and to ensure that the proposal does not cause
         harm to the rural character of the area or adjacent SSSI/SPA.

   3.    No additional bedroom accommodation shall be permitted within the building
         hereby approved without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.
         Furthermore the bedroom accommodation shall be retained solely for the use of
         guests staying at the facility hereby approved.

         Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to limit overnight use
         which could adversely impact upon the openness of the countryside, residential
         amenity and nature conservation interests.

   4.    There shall be no external lighting within the site apart from that shown on plan
         DNS-05, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

         Reason: To ensure that the rural character of the site is not prejudiced as a result of
         this development.

   5.    The proposed membership of the facility hereby approved shall not exceed 1600
         members without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

         Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to ensure that adequate
         parking provision is made within the site.

   6.    Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 13 attached to outline planning
         permission SU 96/0494 prior to the facility hereby approved becoming operational
         the fencing shown around the car parking areas on drawing DNS-05 shall be
         implemented and thereafter retained to prevent vehicular access onto
         environmentally sensitive areas of the site.
                                              8
      Reason: In the interest of nature conservation.

7.    Prior to the creation of the lake hereby approved full details of its construction
      method, as outlined in a letter from dns Stuart dated 28th February 2006 shall be
      submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Once approved
      construction shall follow the agreed methodology.

      Reason: To ensure the construction of the lake does not prejudice nature
      conservation interests on the site.

8.    Notwithstanding the requirements of condition 7 attached to outline planning
      permission SU96/0494 details of the location of construction vehicle parking,
      construction site operatives parking , and storage of plant and materials associated
      with the development of the site are to be submitted to and approved by the Local
      Planning Authority. The details shall also include a fencing plan to show how such
      areas will be restricted to prevent access into the environmentally sensitive parts of
      the site.

      Reason: To allow adequate site access for construction purposes without causing
      harm to the environmentally sensitive areas.

9.    Full details of the ecological trail within the site (the position as shown on drawing
      DNS05), showing the method of construction, surfacing materials and details of the
      various displays are to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
      Authority prior to construction. Once agreed the construction of the path will be in
      accordance with the agreed design and shall thereafter be retained.

      Reason: In the interest of nature conservation and to ensure that the rural character
      of the countryside is not prejudiced as a result of the development.

10.   Not withstanding condition 13 attached to outline planning permission SU96/0494
      no demolition site clearance or building operations shall commence until protective
      fencing has been erected separating all the construction areas from the Site of
      Nature Conservation Importance as identified in the Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000.
      Furthermore fencing shall be erected along the common boundary with the
      adjoining SSSI in a position and design to be agreed with the Local Planning
      Authority prior to the commencement of works. Once agreed all the fencing shall
      be erected prior to the commencement of development, or within a timetable to be
      agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Once fencing has been agreed it shall be
      erected and retained in a satisfactory condition at all times.

      Reason: To ensure nature conservation interests on the SNCI and SSSI are not
      prejudiced by the development proposal.

11.   The car park hereby approved shall be retained at all times for use of Members and
      their guests. No public parking will be permitted within the site and no access to
      the common land surrounding the site will be made available through the site.

      Reason: To ensure environmentally sensitive areas are not prejudiced by this
      development.

                                           9
12.   Details of the access control barrier to the site as shown on drawing DNS-05 are to
      be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to
      commencement of development. Once agreed the barrier shall be installed, prior to
      the use becoming operational. Once installed the barrier shall remain operational,
      and in use 24 hours a day.

      Reason: To control access to the site to accord with the terms of the application and
      to prevent general public access to the site which could prejudice environmentally
      sensitive areas.

13.   The hours of opening to members not staying on the premises shall be restricted to
      7.30am - 10pm Monday to Saturdays and 10am to 6pm on Sundays.

      Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

14.   The development shall not be occupied until the proposed vehicular access to
      Kings Ride has been constructed with a carriageway width of 5.5m, a bell mouth
      radaii of 6m, visibility zones of 90m in both directions, and footway widths of 2m
      on both sides of the access. The footways shall also be extended along Kings Ride
      for a further 6m all in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in
      writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway
      Authority all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed in
      writing with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept
      permanently clear of any obstruction.

      Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not
      prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to
      accord with Policies DN2 and DN3 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and Policies M7
      and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan (2000).

15.   No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site
      in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the
      Local Planning Authority for cars to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they
      may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning area shall be
      maintained exclusively for its designated use.

      Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not
      prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to
      accord with Policies DN2 and DN3 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and Policies M7
      and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan (2000).

16.   No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to
      include details of:
      (a)    parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
      (b)    loading and unloading of plant and materials
      (c)    storage of plant and materials
      has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
      Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

      Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not
      prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to

                                           10
         accord with Policies DN2 and DN3 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and Policies M7
         and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan (2000).

   17.   Before any of the operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or
         from the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided as must be agreed with the
         Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts
         to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface
         on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used
         whenever the said operations are carried out.

         Reason: The condition above is required in order that the development should not
         prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users, and to
         accord with Policies DN2 and DN3 of Surrey Structure Plan 2004, and Policies M7
         and M8 of the Surrey Heath Local Plan (2000).

   18.   No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out in accordance
         with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning
         Authority for cycles to be stored and thereafter retained exclusively for its
         designated use.

         Reason: The reason above is required in recognition of Planning Policy Guidance
         Note 13 Transport, which aims to reduce reliance on the private car.

Informative(s)

   1.    There are public sewers crossing this site. The applicant is advised that without the
         permission of Thames Water no development should take place within 3m of any
         sewer. Further guidance on this matter can be obtained from Thames Water on
         0845 850 2777.

   2.    Any works whatsoever (alterations/diversions/culverting) to the existing land
         drainage features on the site must be agreed by both the Environment Agency prior
         to commencement of development.

BACKGROUND PAPERS
Previous planning decisions as referred to in Relevant Planning History above.
Consultation responses and representations.

_________________________________________________________________________




                                             11

								
To top