13sept06_item1 by chenmeixiu

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 23

									ITEM NUMBER 1

APPLN. NO.:     :06/00608/FUL                  Rodd Industrial Estate and “The Lodge”,
VALID DATE      :30/06/2006                    Govett Avenue, Shepperton.
EXPIRY DATE     :29/09/2006
CTTEE DATE      :13/09/2006/EJS                Demolition of existing buildings and erection
TARGET          :UNDER 13 WKS                  of 96 residential units with associated
                                               parking, garages and amenity open space.

                                               As shown on drawing nos. A4941/2.1/301,
                                               302A, 303A, 304A, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309,
                                               310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316A, 317 and
                                               318A received on 30/06/06 and 331A, 332A,
                                               334A received on 11/08/06.


WARD : Shepperton Town

1.    Borough Local Plan

      -   Area Liable to Flood (Local Plan Policy BE29)
      -   Adjacent site of Nature Conservation Importance (Local Plan Policy RU11)
      -   Adjacent River Ash (P34 - Provision of Riverside Walk)
      -   Adjacent Green Belt (Local Plan Policy GB1, GB2)
      -   Close to Protected Urban Open Space Site (D13 - Catlin Crescent) (Local Plan
          Policy BE14)


2.    Relevant Planning History


      03/00056/FUL      Demolition of existing buildings and erection of   Refused
                        111 residential units with associated parking,     03/03/2004.
                        garages and amenity open space with access         Appeal dismissed
                        via Govett Avenue and pedestrian/cyclist           12/10/2005
                        access via Catlin Crescent                         (Appeal A)


      03/00057/FUL      Demolition of existing buildings and erection of   Refused
                        98 residential units with associated parking,      27/04/2005.
                        garages and amenity open space.                    Appeal dismissed
                                                                           12/10/2005
                                                                           (Appeal B)

      05/01132/FUL      Demolition of existing buildings and erection of   Refused
                        96 residential units with associated parking,      03/02/2006
                        garages and amenity open space.


3.    Description of Current Proposal

3.1   The application relates to the Rodd Industrial Estate, which is located on the northern
      side of Govett Avenue in Shepperton. The site contains industrial units, which are
      now vacant. Hard surfacing and parking surrounds the site on all four boundaries.
      The site also contains “The Lodge” which is a two storey dwelling. To the east is




                                             - C1 -
      Catlin Crescent, a housing development containing mainly two storey semi detached
      dwellings. To the south and south east is Gaston Way, which also comprises mainly
      two storey semi detached dwellings although there are a few bungalows. To the
      south west on the southern side of Govett Avenue are dwellings, which are
      bungalows. On the western side of the site are older industrial buildings, which share
      an access with the application site (the existing access being off Govett Avenue on
      the south westen side at the junction with Gaston Way). Further to the west and
      southwest is the relatively new Shepperton Business Park. To the north of the site is
      the River Ash with Sunbury Golf Course beyond.

3.2   This is a detailed planning application seeking full permission to demolish all existing
      buildings on the site and erect 96 residential units with associated parking, garages
      and amenity open space with access via Govett Avenue. The application is identical,
      in terms of housing types, to planning application 05/001132/FUL. The layout is also
      almost identical to the previous application with the main alteration being an
      adjustment to the position of the ramp down to the basement parking under Blocks A-
      D It is also an amendment to the previous submission, 03/00057/FUL which was for
      98 dwellings and which was dismissed on appeal on 12/10/2005.

3.3   A schedule of the proposed development is as follows:-

                                      Private            Affordable       Total

      1 bed apartments                  15                  13             28

      2 bed apartments                  31                  17             48

      2 bed houses                       4                   4              8

      4 bed houses                      12                   0             12

      TOTAL                             62                  34             96



      The proposal provides a total of 35.4% (34 units) affordable housing of which 71%
      (24 units) will be for rent and 29% (10 units) for shared ownership.

3.4   The existing access to the site will be retained to serve this development and the
      existing industrial uses to the west. The access will act as a spine road with the
      proposed residential located off to the east and southeast. A copy of the layout plan
      is attached as an Appendix together with that for the previous 98 unit scheme.

3.5   Two blocks of flats would be erected fronting Gaston Way, immediately to the east of
      the entrance to the site. Both of these blocks would be wholly two-storey. These
      blocks would provide a total of ten one-bedroom affordable flats. Twelve houses
      each with their own private rear gardens would be erected backing on to the rear of
      nos. 116-134 Gaston Way. Eight of these would be two-storey in two terraced
      blocks. The remaining four would be semi-detached with second floor
      accommodation in the roof space (having a dormer window in the front elevation and
      Velux windows at the rear. Four of these dwellings, located on the western side
      would be affordable houses.

3.6   Within the centre of the site an area of open space has been provided. This feature
      measures, in the main, 30m by 31m. To the west of the open space, two blocks of
      flats would be erected. Both would be three-storey but with an additional floor




                                                - C2 -
          provided in the roof space with dormers. The larger block would provide 1 one and
          19 two bedroom affordable flats. The other block would provide 11 one and two
          bedroom private market flats.

3.7       On the northern (rear) part of the site there will be four blocks of apartments facing
          the River Ash providing a total of 35 one and two bedroom flats. The block closest to
          Catlin Crescent will be set further forward than the remaining three and would be two-
          storey with a second floor in the roof space with dormers. The remaining three
          blocks would be three storey. Basement parking would be provided beneath these
          blocks. Eight semi detached dwellings would be located fronting Catlin Crescent.
          They would be two storey with dormer windows at second floor level in the rear
          elevation of the six northern most dwellings. The front elevations of all eight
          dwellings and the rear elevations of the two southern most dwellings would have roof
          lights for the second floor level accommodation in the roof space

3.8       The design of the buildings incorporate hipped pitch roofs and some flat roof dormers
          and sky lights. They also include contemporary features such as two storey
          rectangular bays to some of the houses. The proposed materials include brick, tiles,
          glass panels in painted steelwork for the balconies and elements of Portland Stone.
          However, material samples have not been submitted at this stage. The minimum
          finished floor level will be 11.60 AOD following the Environment Agency’s flood
          assessment. This is higher than the existing levels on the site.

3.9       The proposal will involve the removal of a conifer hedge, which exists along the site
          frontage with Catlin Crescent. The proposals have also been amended to retain the
          existing conifer hedge on the southern part of the site to the rear of the development
          in Gaston Way. There will be grassed areas surrounding the blocks of flats. In
          addition to the central open space, there will also be a large area of open amenity
          space between the northern (rear) buildings and the River Ash. New planting is also
          proposed, involving tree planting along the frontage with Catlin Crescent and at
          various places within the site and also shrub planting. There are also proposals for
          planting within the wildlife corridor close to the River Ash.

3.10      There will be a total of 144 car spaces including 12 garages, which equates to 1.5
          spaces per unit across the site. This accords with the Council’s maximum parking
          standards. The proposal also incorporates six parking spaces to serve the existing
          M&S Accident Repairs which will be retained directly to the west of the application
          site. In addition, cycle parking at a ratio of one space per dwelling will be provided for
          the flats in cycle stores. Cycle parking for the houses will be available in the
          integral/attached garages or gardens.

3.11      In terms of the road layout, as stated earlier, the existing access on the western side
          will be utilised to serve this site and the existing commercial buildings to the west.
          The original proposals proposed under 03/00056/FUL, incorporated a vehicular
          access into Catlin Crescent but this was subsequently deleted, and the pedestrian
          and cycle access have also been deleted.

3.12      The differences between this proposal and that proposed under 03/00057/FUL which
          was dismissed on appeal can be summarised as follows:

         A reduction in the height of the block of flats fronting Gaston Way and adjacent to the
          access road from two and a half and two storey to solely two storey. This involves
          the deletion of 2 dwellings.




                                                     - C3 -
         Increased space between the proposed parking and associated access and the
          side/rear boundary of 134 Gaston Way with the deletion of two parking spaces.

         The deletion of the front dormers from the pair of semi detached dwellings facing the
          side of no. 2 Catlin Crescent.

         A minor remodelling of the larger of the two blocks of flats to the west of the central
          open space.

         A minor alteration to the division between the two terraces of two storey two bedroom
          dwellings.

         Deletion of footway to the rear of 132 (part) and 134 Gaston Way

3.13      Compared with the last planning application, 05/01132/FUL, the current application is
          very similar in terms of layout, design etc although there are some minor variations
          including changes to the cycle and bin stores and also a reconfiguration and slight
          increase in height (0.4m) of the roof of the flats in the central part of the site. In
          addition, the applicant has submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment. The new
          flood levels result in the buildings being raised slightly higher. The proposed floor
          level will remain constant throughout the proposed scheme, but since there is a slight
          variation in levels across the site the floors of the proposed building will be between
          0.1m and 0.8m (Block D) above ground level. The applicant has also submitted some
          details relating to energy efficiency in the design. These will be addressed in section
          7.0 “Planning Considerations” below.

4.        Consultations

4.1       County Planning Officer (Strategic Consultation) – Raised objection under Structure
          Plan Policy SE2 to the original submission as the proposals failed to deal with the
          requirements of the policy in relation to the use of renewable energy sources.
          However, following the applicant’s confirmation that an energy statement will be
          submitted which would include 10% of the total energy from solar panels, SCC have
          advise that their objection would be overcome.

4.2       Highway Authority – Requested a reduction in car parking. Also made a number of
          detailed comments, which were referred to the applicant. Requires the provision of
          travel vouchers to each residential unit, off site roadworks and the funding of waiting
          restrictions along Govett Avenue. Also recommends conditions.

4.3       Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions.

4.4       Surrey Wildlife Trust – No objection. Recommends that the boundary of the River
          Ash Site of Nature Conservation Importance is fenced during site preparation and
          construction to ensure there is no disturbance to the river bank and possible water
          vole habitat. Also comments that if reptiles are found during site preparation or
          construction, measures must be taken to avoid injury or killing. No objection to the
          list of plants in the applicants’ Design Statement (rather than on the landscaping plan
          which differ).

4.5       English Nature – Comments awaited. Under the last application made comments
          relating to protected species and advised that a bat survey should be undertaken.
          (Officer note: this could be dealt with by means of a suitably worded condition). Also
          commented under application 03/00057/FUL that the seed and planting material




                                                      - C4 -
       should be of local provenance and recommended long term management of amenity
       space/planting is provided for.

4.6    Surrey Police- Has made a number of detailed comments. These have been
       forwarded to the applicant.

4.7    Thames Water – Makes a number of comments including that the developer may be
       required to fund improvements to local water and sewerage infrastructure.

4.8    County Archaeology - No objection.

4.9    Environmental Health Officer - requires a condition to be attached concerning the
       investigation and remediation of contaminated land. No objection on noise grounds.

4.10   Tree Officer - Comments awaited. No objections to previous application.

4.11   Network Rail –No comment.

5.     Third Party Representations

5.1    At the time of writing this report 64 letters have been received objecting to the
       proposal including letters from the Shepperton Residents Association, the Marygate
       Lane. Residents Association and The Crofts Residents Association. Grounds of
       objection are summarised as follows:

       -   Overdevelopment of site
       -   Density too high
       -   Buildings too high
       -   Loss of light
       -   Overlooking
       -   Traffic generation
       -   Inadequate parking provision
       -   Surrounding roads all ready heavily parked
       -   Inadequate access
       -   Area liable to flood
       -   Will put pressure on local services
       -   Inadequate water supply
       -   Contaminated land
       -   Inadequate sewer
       -   Poor design of buildings
       -   Lack of affordable housing
       -   Water recycling inadequate
       -   Inadequate renewable energy proposals
       -   Risk of fire
       -   Problems associated with use of communal areas
       -   Open space will not be safe for children
       -   Little change from previous proposals
       -   Loss of trees
       -   Concerns about impact on global warming
       -   Concerns about design and use of basement car park
       -   Problems associated with demolition/construction

6      Issues

       -   Principle of development




                                                - C5 -
      -   Layout/design
      -   Impact on surrounding dwellings
      -   Impact on character of area
      -   Affordable housing
      -   Open space
      -   Transportation
      -   Flooding
      -   Contamination
      -   Noise
      -   Archaeology
      -   Nature conservation
      -   River Ash
      -   Green belt
      -   Renewable Energy

7     Planning Considerations

7.1   The earlier planning application, 03/00057/FUL, which was considered at appeal, was
      refused planning permission for the following two reasons:

      1. The proposal would, by reason of the numbers of dwellings proposed, the scale
         and massing of the buildings and space around them, represent an
         overdevelopment of the site which would provide a poor environment for the
         occupiers of the proposed dwellings and would detract from the character of the
         surrounding area contrary to policies BE1, BE2, BE6 and BE15 of the Spelthorne
         Borough Local Plan 2001.

      2. Blocks A-D of the proposed development would, by virtue of their siting, bulk and
         design, detract from the visual amenities of the Green Belt land adjoining the site
         to the north of the River Ash contrary to the guidance in PPG2 (Green Belts).


7.2   As indicated earlier in this report, the application (as well as the larger scheme for
      111 dwellings – 03/00056/FUL) was dismissed on appeal in October last year. The
      comments and views of the Planning Inspector on 03/00056/FUL for 98 dwellings are
      very relevant material considerations in the consideration of the current planning
      application. However, the subsequent planning application, 05/01132/FUL was also
      refused planning permission earlier this year for the following three reasons:

      1. The proposal development, by virtue of the numbers of dwellings proposed and
         their scale and massing, results in an overdevelopment of the site which would
         create a poor environment for the residents of the scheme and detract from the
         character of the area contrary to policies BE1, BE2, BE6 and BE15 of the
         Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001.

      2   From the information in the Flood Risk assessment the Council is not satisfied
          that a dry means of escape can be provided in a 1 in 100 year flood event, from
          the site to dry land lying entirely outside the flood plain. The proposal is thus
          considered contrary to Policy BE29 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan and to
          the Guidance in PPG25.

      3   From the information submitted in the application the Council is not satisfied that
          the design of the development will result in a minimum of 10% of the energy
          requirement of the scheme being provided by renewable resources. The proposal
          is thus considered contrary to Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.




                                                - C6 -
7.3   This part of the Committee report will address all the relevant planning issues and
      whether the concerns of the Planning Inspector on the appeal schemes have been
      adequately addressed and whether the reasons for refusal on 05/01132/FUL have
      been overcome.

      Principle of Development

7.4   Policy EM1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 seeks to maintain a diverse
      and buoyant economy and employment opportunities subject to:-

           No material increase in the demand for housing in the Borough,
           No material reduction in employment opportunities
           No increase in travel demand by virtue of location,
           No adverse impact on the amenities of nearby residential properties.

7.5   The emerging Local Development Framework broadly continues this approach. It
      takes account of significant planned employment growth, it identifies sites to be
      retained in employment use and recognises that some sites are not well located for
      continued employment use. As part of the early consultation on the Local
      Development Framework (Issues and Questions Stage September-October 2005)
      this site was proposed for residential use recognising that the employment use is not
      appropriate in this otherwise residential area. This application is in line with the
      Council’s recognition of the sites suitability for residential development. Whilst the
      site was not proposed for residential use in the Preferred Options Stage (May/June
      2006) for flooding reasons, that issue has been resolved in the latest application.

7.6   No objection was made to the replacement of employment land with housing on this
      site under the previous applications. Indeed the planning inspector in the recent
      appeals noted this by stating at para. 11:

      “There are no policies in the LP that specifically seek to resist a loss of existing
      employment uses and the Council accepts that the principle of residential
      development on the appeals site accords with the LP.”

      The acceptability of Living Conditions for Prospective Residents of the Development

7.7   In the previous appeal, the Inspector considered the acceptability of living conditions
      for prospective residents. He commented that the Council was concerned that the
      separation distance between the flats in Block G and the houses proposed on the
      opposite side of the road is inadequate. In response the inspector stated:

      “However, the separation distance is nearly 20 metres and the views are to the front
      elevations of the respective properties. Although Block G would be a somewhat
      dominant structure in the street scene, I am satisfies that standards of privacy and
      general amenity would not be unacceptable, bearing in mind that the houses have
      private rear gardens and the proposal includes a substantial are of open space in the
      centre of the development close to block G”.

7.8   With regard to the flats at the eastern end of the main northern elevation of Block G,
      the Inspector comments that the outlook would not be of a high standard as it would
      be to a large extent over parking areas, roads, and industrial buildings to the west.
      However, he concludes by stating that:




                                                  - C7 -
       “I consider that the living conditions for prospective residents in terms of outlook and
       daylight would not be so poor that planning permission should be withheld for this
       reason.”

7.9    In terms of open space provision, the Inspector on the appeal scheme notes that
       much of the open space would be of practical use to residents and well sited, close to
       the centre of the development. He notes that there would be limited open space
       around blocks G and H but that these blocks would be close to the large area of open
       space in the centre of the development. The Inspector concludes that:

       “I am satisfied that the amenity and public open spaces to be provided in the scheme
       for 98 dwellings would be of an acceptable standard.”

7.10   The Planning Inspector concludes on the issue of the acceptability of living conditions
       for prospective residents that:

       On balance…., I conclude that although some of the proposed structures would be
       obtrusive and dominant in the street scene, the outlook from some flats would not be
       of a high standard, an there would be little or no private amenity space for many of
       the flats in the scheme, I conclude that the generous amount of open and amenity
       space to be provided, together with the orientation, design and spacing of the
       proposed dwellings is such that the living conditions of prospective residents would
       be acceptable.

7.11   In terms of the layout and open space, the current proposal for 96 dwellings is very
       similar to the appeal scheme of 98 units although there are some small changes,
       which include alterations to the bin and cycle stores. Therefore, in view of the
       Inspectors’ conclusions set out above, it is not considered that the current proposal
       could be refused on ground of poor environment for the occupiers of the proposed
       dwellings as set out in the first reason for refusal under of 03/00057/FUL.

       Layout/Design and Impact of Development

7.12   This proposal for 96 units has a density of 58.5 dwellings per hectare (compared to
       59.75/ha on the appeal scheme 03/00057/FUL). PPG3 “Housing” states that housing
       developments of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare should be encouraged.
       Greater intensity of development should be sought at places with good public
       transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres or around major
       roads along good quality public transport.

7.13   In the context of considering the density of the development, it is important to
       consider the layout of the development and how it relates to the surrounding
       development. In the previous appeal, the Inspector considered the impact of the
       development on the character and appearance of the area, which is the second part
       of the reason for refusal on the previous application. The development along Catlin
       Crescent comprises eight town houses, which are two storey with a dormer window in
       the rear elevation of the six northern most dwellings and velux windows in the front
       and also the rear two southern houses providing accommodation at the second floor.
       Each dwelling has an integral garage with parking space in front. The siting of the
       dwellings will allow for planting along the road frontage. In assessing the impact of
       the 8 new dwellings on Catlin Crescent, the Inspector commented that

       “the design of the dwellings…..with the setting back of the linked garages above
       them…creating a sense of „rhythm‟ intending to reflect that of existing development.
       Moreover by placing the dormer windows at the rear of the 6 dwellings closest to the



                                                  - C8 -
       grassed central area of Catlin Crescent, the 2.5 storey nature of the development
       would be less obvious. Unfortunately the dormer windows would be retained in the
       front elevations of the two most southern dwellings, because to place them at the rear
       would cause problems of overlooking of rear gardens to the west. Nevertheless, I am
       satisfied that the proposals along the eastern edge of the scheme….would not cause
       unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the locality.”

7.14   The current proposal has amended the two southern dwellings (plots 87 and 88) by
       deleting the front dormers and replacing them with roof lights. This addresses the
       Inspector’s reservations and ensures that this aspect of the development has an
       acceptable impact on the surroundings. It is therefore considered that the positioning
       and design of these dwellings would have an acceptable impact on the street scene
       of Catlin Crescent.

7.15   Two blocks of flats are proposed fronting Gaston Way. In the appeal scheme, two
       blocks of flats were also proposed between the access road and no. 134 Gaston
       Way. These buildings were mainly two storeys but the one adjacent to the access
       was 2.5 storeys on the western side. It also included a balcony at second floor level
       onto Gaston Way. The Inspector considered that:

       “….it seems to me that this part of the building would appear almost as a three storey
       structure” Furthermore “In my opinion, the proposed 2.5 storey building at the
       entrance to the site would appear as an over prominent and somewhat domineering
       feature in a road otherwise characterised by single and two storey development”.

7.16   The Inspector concluded by stating

       “It is unfortunate that this feature has been included in the scheme associated with
       Appeal B” (i.e. the previous proposal for 98 dwellings) “because, in my judgement,
       the remainder of the proposal has overcome the main objections to the scheme
       associated with Appeal A (i.e. the previous proposal for 111 dwellings) “in terms of
       impact on character and appearance. In particular the large open area that would be
       sited at the heart of the scheme for 98 dwellings would ensure that this part of the
       development did not appear unduly cramped, and the replacement of Block F” (i.e.
       flats) “with 2 storey housing would obviate the detrimental impact of that block in
       views from Gaston Way. Although the southern two dwellings fronting onto Catlin
       Crescent would have dormer windows in their front elevations, these dwellings would
       not be in a particularly prominent location, in my judgement. Notwithstanding these
       matters, I conclude that the scheme as a whole would have a detrimental impact on
       he character and appearance of the area because of the dominant appearance of the
       western element of proposed Block L” (i.e. adjacent to the access road fronting
       Gaston way).

7.17   The applicant has amended the scheme by proposing that both blocks of flats are two
       storey. This would, in my view overcomes the Inspector’s particular concerns and
       result in a development, which would have a satisfactory appearance in the street
       scene and a satisfactory relationship to the adjoining property.

7.18   The proposed houses backing on to the properties in Gaston Way are two storey at
       the rear with four of the houses having velux lights in the roof at second floor level at
       the rear. These terraces are situated between 21m and 25m from the rear of the
       properties fronting Gaston Way. These terraces comply with the Council's
       Supplementary Planning Guidance for New Residential Development (SPG) both in
       terms of their "back to back" separation and also back to boundary distances. They
       also exceed the Council's minimum amenity space standards.




                                                  - C9 -
7.19   Another part of the development, which is close to existing houses relates to the rear
       of the site, facing the River Ash. Concern was originally expressed by Officers that
       Block D had an unacceptable impact on the adjacent property to the east in Catlin
       Crescent. The applicant submitted amended plans repositioning Block D in a
       southwards direction so that it no longer breaks the 45° plane. Subject to a condition
       requiring the windows in the eastern elevation to be obscure glazed, it is considered
       that this part of the development would have a satisfactory impact on the adjacent
       dwelling, no. 54. In terms of the flats on the rear part of the site, the Inspector
       concludes that:

       “I…consider that this part of the development would not cause harm to the character
       and appearance of the area. On the contrary, despite the increased height from the
       earlier scheme, it seems to me that this aspect of the proposal would be beneficial to
       the character and appearance of the area.”

7.20   This aspect of the development is therefore considered to be acceptable.

7.21   The two blocks to the west of the central open space are three storeys with
       accommodation in the roofspace having dormer windows. These blocks will not be
       readily visible when viewed from outside the site and it is considered that the central
       part of this site can adequately accommodate buildings of this height and scale,
       especially as they are located close to the new open space at the centre of the site.

7.22   The internal layout, including the relative height and positioning of dwellings and the
       parking has been considered in detail. The Council is required under PPG3
       “Housing” to make the best use of urban land but in doing so, the importance of good
       design and layout to enhance this successfully is recognised. It is considered that the
       scheme does make efficient use of land in an area, which is close to Shepperton
       Town and public transport facilities including Shepperton Railway Station. It is
       considered that the site could thus sustain a marginally higher density of development
       than the 30 - 50 dwellings/ha figures set out in PPG3 given its location and the fact
       that many of the dwellings are small units. The density of the scheme at 58.5
       dwellings/ha is considered appropriate for this site.

7.23   The buildings would be constructed from a variety of materials including grey tiles,
       soft red brick and buff brown brick and reconstituted stone string courses. Samples
       have not, however, been submitted at this stage. The main change in the overall
       design of the development since the initial submission is the addition of pitched roofs
       on all the buildings in lieu of the flat roof buildings originally proposed. Officers
       considered the original scheme to be unacceptable in design terms and it was for this
       reason that amendments were sought. The overall design of the development is
       considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of the area.

7.24   A good degree of lighting will assist in deterring vandalism, particularly in the parking
       areas, and adjacent to the footways. The details of the lighting and some other
       comments made by the Surrey Police (Crime Prevention) should be made the subject
       of conditions.

7.25   It is noted that the numbers of dwellings, layout and massing has not altered since
       the previous application, 05/01132/FUL was considered by the Planning Committee.
       The Officer recommendation was to approve as it was considered that it overcame
       the reservations by the Planning Inspector on the appeal scheme. For the reasons
       explained above, it is still considered that the current revised proposal is acceptable




                                                - C10 -
       in terms of layout and design and would not detract from the character of the
       surrounding area.

       Affordable Housing

7.26   The proposal includes a total of 34 (35.4%) affordable dwellings on site. 24 (71%) of
       the affordable units would be for rent with 10 (29%) being for shared ownership. The
       percentage of affordable housing is the same as that proposed under 03/00057/FUL
       although the percentage of rented units is very slightly less at 71% compared with
       74%. The Local Plan policies relating to affordable housing and housing mix have
       been revised and were adopted in December 2004. In addition supplementary
       planning guidance relating to affordable housing has been adopted by the Council,
       which explains how the proposed revised affordable housing policy will be applied.
       Policy H6 requires 50% of housing on sites (of 15 dwellings or more or 0.5 hectares
       or larger) to be affordable. The SPG further requires that of the 50% affordable
       housing, up to 35% should be in the form of shared ownership and 65% for rent.
       Policy DN11 of the Surrey Structure Plan requires that at least 40% of the new
       housing provision should be affordable.

7.27   The level and type of affordable housing proposed under this application is identical
       to that proposed under 05/01132/FUL. The affordable housing under that proposal
       and also the two previous appeal schemes has been the subject of much discussion
       between the applicants and the Council and the Council has taken specialist
       independent valuation advice on this matter. Given the proximity of neighbouring
       residential properties and the existing use of the site for commercial purposes, I
       consider it desirable that the site is redeveloped for residential purposes. I am also
       conscious that the present commercial use of the site has a certain value, and is
       unlikely to be redeveloped residentially unless it is financially attractive to do so.
       Based on the information submitted by the applicant, together with a calculation of the
       existing use value of the site, the Council’s consultant is of the opinion that the type
       and amount of affordable housing to be provided by the applicant as part of this
       development is now acceptable. Whilst not fully achieving the requirement for 50%
       affordable, given the other circumstances to consider on this site, I am satisfied that
       the scheme sufficiently complies with the Council’s revised housing policy H6 and
       Interim Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing.

7.28   Revised Policy H5, seeks to require the provision of at least 80% of units in
       developments of three dwellings or more to be in the form of one and two bedroom
       dwellings. In terms of Policy H5, 87.5% of the units would be one or two bedroom
       dwellings and the policy is complied with.

       Open Space

7.29   In any large residential development of 30 or more family dwellings Policy BE15 of
       the Local Plan makes a requirement for public open space. The requirement of the
       policy is to incorporate a minimum of 0.1 ha of public open space for 30 family
       dwellings, increased proportionally according to the size of the scheme. In larger
       schemes the Local Plan states that the Council will expect the open space to
       incorporate an equipped playground at the developer’s expense with a contribution
       towards its maintenance.

7.30   The applicant has provided 0.25 hectares of public open space, on the northern part
       of the site adjacent to the river and some 0.09 hectares in the form of open space at
       the centre of the site making a total of 0.34 hectares. The Local Plan identifies family
       dwellings as those with two bedrooms or more. The application has 68 dwellings,




                                                 - C11 -
       which have two bedrooms or more. Applying the formula would result in a total open
       space requirement of 0.22 hectares. The proposal, as amended, therefore meets this
       requirement. It should be noted that the proposal also provides other smaller areas
       of open space within the site as well as amenity space around the blocks of flats. In
       terms of its location, the open space on the northern side is close to the River Ash
       and has a pleasant outlook over Green Belt land. In addition, it would be located
       adjacent to the existing open space at the rear of Catlin Crescent. The central open
       space also provides a pleasant outlook for many of the surrounding units. It is
       considered that these locations are acceptable in planning terms. As indicated in 7.7
       above, the Planning Inspector considered that the amenity space for the 98 dwellings
       which remains the same under this scheme, was acceptable by stating “I am satisfied
       that the amenity and public open spaces to be provided in the scheme for 98
       dwellings would be of an acceptable standard.”. In view of the fact that 84 of the 96
       units are shown as one or two bedroom flats, it is not considered that the provision of
       a children’s play area would be required. In the event that a planning application was
       considered acceptable in planning terms in all respects, the applicant would be
       required to enter into a legal agreement requiring that the public has access to the
       open space in perpetuity. The amenity area provision to serve the flats and also the
       private garden space for the houses are considered to be acceptable.

       Traffic generation

7.31   Many of the local residents have raised concerns over highway/traffic/on-street
       parking issues. On the previous application for 111 units, a reason for refusal was
       added by the Planning Committee, against the advice of the County Engineer on the
       grounds that the proposed traffic generation associated with the development is likely
       to exacerbate existing traffic congestion and on street parking within the surrounding
       area and thus have an unacceptable and adverse impact upon the amenity of the
       surrounding residential properties. However, a reason for refusal based on highway
       matters was not attached to the application for 98 units or the most recent application
       for 96 units. In the consideration of both appeals in October 2005, the Planning
       Inspector noted that:

       “Many residents are concerned about large flows of traffic on the local road
       network and the high levels of on street parking in the area. It is argued that a
       high density residential development at the appeal site would exacerbate these
       problems…With regard to traffic generation, I am satisfied that the residential
       developments associated with appeals A or B would give rise to less traffic than
       could well be generated by the resumption of the lawful use of the site as an
       industrial estate. Moreover, the capacity of the local highway network, including
       the junction leading into the site, is more than adequate to deal with traffic that
       would be generated by Appeals A or B. I note that both the Highway Authority
       and Spelthorne Borough Council consider that the proposed parking provision
       on the site would be adequate and that the impact of traffic generated by the
       residential developments would not justify a refusal of planning permission.

       In view of the above, it is not considered that the proposal could be refused on
       transportation grounds.

       Parking

7.32   Local residents have also raised concerns over on street parking in the local area.
       The proposal would result in an overall parking provision across the site of some 1.5
       spaces per dwelling and the maximum parking standards are met. The objectives of
       PPG13 "Transport" are to integrate planning and transport to promote sustainable


                                                 - C12 -
       transport, improve accessibility to jobs, shopping, leisure, etc and to reduce the need
       to travel by car. The transport objectives of PPG3 "Housing" are to place people's
       needs above the car, reduce car dependence by improving the linkage between
       transport and housing, jobs, shopping, leisure, etc and to make the best use of urban
       land. Department for Transport advice on Local Transport Plans recommends an
       integrated strategy for parking, joining planning and transport powers, and recognises
       that parking restraint is a important power to limit car use. It recommends lower
       amounts of parking on development in areas that are accessible by non-car travel.
       Paragraph 60 of PPG3 “Housing” states that “developers should not be required to
       provide more car parking than they or potential occupiers might want, nor to provide
       off-street parking when there is no need, particularly in urban areas where public
       transport is available.” Paragraph 62 of PPG3 states that “car parking standards that
       result, on average, in development with more than 1.5 off-street car parking spaces
       per dwelling are unlikely to reflect the Government’s emphasis on securing
       sustainable residential environments”. The proposal has a provision for the whole of
       the site of 1.5 spaces per dwelling and is considered to be acceptable. In addition, it
       should also be noted that the site is in a reasonably sustainable location being fairly
       close to Shepperton town and public transport facilities.

7.33   In the consideration of the appeals, the Planning Inspector noted the residents
       concerns in relation to on street parking but concluded that:

       “..it seems to me that the evidence demonstrates that adequate parking facilities
       would be provided on the site in relation to both Appeals A and B to serve prospective
       occupiers of the development and visitors. I appreciate that existing commercial
       development in the area appears to generate a substantial amount of on street
       parking during the day and that parts of the appeal site are presently used for parking
       associated with nearby commercial development, particularly the nearby motor repair
       business. Presumably the appeals proposals would displace the parking, which
       presently takes place on the site, and thereby increase pressure for parking
       elsewhere, probably on the highway. However, as the appellants point out, the
       present parking on the site would be displaced in any case, if the lawful use of the
       site as an industrial estate were to be resumed. It is unreasonable to expect the
       appellants to cater for parking generated by adjacent sites. Problems on the public
       highway caused by parking associated with local businesses can be dealt with by
       means of appropriate parking controls.

7.34   In view of the above and since the current scheme is for 2 less units, the above
       conclusions must also apply to this reduced scheme as they did to 05/01132/FUL. In
       view of the foregoing, it is considered that the parking provision is acceptable.

7.35   The proposal intends to utilise the existing vehicular access to the industrial estate in
       Govett Avenue. The access from Govett Avenue will be shared access with the
       industrial units to be retained to the west. A point of concern expressed on this
       proposal relates to fears over on street parking obstructing visibility at the site access.
       This possible situation may be exacerbated by the remaining industrial users on the
       site, which currently rely on part of the area to be redeveloped for storage and the
       parking of vehicles (although it is acknowledged that six parking spaces will be
       provided within the development for M & S Accident Repairs). Recognising this
       issues, the applicant has agreed to fund a scheme, which would discourage
       commuter parking along Gaston Way, especially close to the site access. The
       County Engineer has advised that the best solution in this location would be a
       combination of footway widening and an extension of the waiting restrictions on the
       north side of Govett Avenue. It is considered that if the footway to the west of the site
       access is widened by narrowing Govett Avenue to 5 metres, the proposed means of



                                                  - C13 -
       accessing the site would be acceptable. The applicants have agreed to undertake
       these works and to fund a waiting restriction traffic order, which can be secured by
       means of a legal agreement. This would ensure that the proposal is acceptable on
       highway safety grounds.

7.36   In addition, the County Highway Authority requires the applicant to provide vouchers
       to the value of £250 per individual unit, to be made available upon first occupation of
       each unit. The vouchers would be redeemable against local train or bus travel and/or
       local bicycle shops. This would be in accordance with National Planning Guidance
       set out in PPG13 “Transport” which is aimed at reducing reliance on the private car
       and promoting other means of transport and was provided by Barratts on the Windmill
       Road scheme. The total sum payable for this development would be £24,000. The
       applicants have agreed to provide this sum, which would be secured by a legal
       agreement in the event that a planning application is considered acceptable in
       planning terms. This can be seen as part of a package of measures to encourage
       alternative modes of transport in line with PPG13 “Transport” and local transportation
       policies.

       Flooding

7.37   The site is allocated within the 1 in 100 year flood plain, which was updated in June
       2005. When the two original planning applications for 111 units and 98 units were
       considered, there was no objection on flooding grounds. However the flood levels
       increased in 2005 and the Flood Risk Assessment submitted under 05/01132/FUL did
       not reflect this. Consequently the Environment Agency raised objection as the FRA
       did not show that dry access can be provided from the site for the residents of the
       proposed properties. As a consequence the application was refused on this basis.
       However, since this time, the applicants’ consultants have been in discussion with the
       Environment Agency to resolve this issue. The amended flood risk assessment
       submitted with this application reflects the new 2005 flood levels and the Environment
       Agencies now have now objection to the proposed subject to the imposition of
       conditions on any permission granted.

       Contamination

7.38   Given the industrial use of the site and adjacent land, an investigation report has
       previously been submitted and the Council’s Pollution Control Officer has been
       consulted in the planning application. She recommends a condition be imposed for
       the investigation and remediation of contamination land.

       Noise

7.39   The proposed residential development lies close to existing industrial uses and the
       Council’s Noise Officer has been consulted on the proposals. He considers that the
       presence of existing commercial uses and possible impact on the western boundary
       of the site will have to be viewed and balanced against the acknowledged impact of
       the previous industrial use of the development site which was caused to nearby
       domestic properties. As a consequence, the Noise Officer does not raise objection
       on this aspect of the proposal and he also confirms that the site will not be adversely
       affected by transportation noise sources.

       Nature conservation/landscaping

7.40   A small part of the site, close to the River Ash, is located within a site of Nature
       Conservation Importance. The applicant has submitted an Ecological Appraisal and



                                                - C14 -
       both English Nature and the Surrey Wildlife Trust have been consulted. The
       proposals seek to expand the wildlife corridor along the southern bank of the River
       Ash. The area will be planted with native species and will include an informal
       pathway. This will require an amendment to the submitted plan, which can be dealt
       with by means of a condition. Both the Trust and English Nature have requested that
       appropriate regular long term management is provided for. They have also made
       recommendations on the need to protect bats (which are protected species) and birds
       during nesting season. These can be secured by conditions/informatives. Elsewhere
       within the site there is some new planting proposed, including tree planting, which
       would assist in softening the appearance of the proposed development. In addition,
       as a consequence of residents’ concerns, the plans also showed the retention of the
       existing conifer hedge on the southern boundary with the dwellings in Gaston Way. It
       should be noted that the site lies adjacent to Proposal P34 of the Local Plan, which
       requires the provision of a riverside walk along the River Ash. However, it is not
       recommended with this particular application since the formation of a walkway within
       a site of nature conservation is not supported by the Surrey Wildlife Trust. In
       addition, a walkway has been secured on the northern side of the river.

       Green Belt

7.41   The land to the north of the site lies within the Green Belt. PPG2 “Green Belts” states
       that the “visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for
       development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt”. The visual impact on the
       Green Belt of the proposed blocks of apartments on the northern side of the site have
       been carefully assessed. The second reason for refusal on 03/00057/FUL identified
       concern with the four blocks of flats facing the River Ash and the Green Belt and
       stated that “Blocks A-D of the proposed development would, by virtue of their siting,
       bulk and design, detract from the visual amenities of the Green Belt land adjoining the
       site to the north of the River Ash contrary to the guidance in PPG2 (Green Belts)”. In
       the assessment of this at the appeal, the Planning Inspector stated that:

       “…I consider that the development would not harm the visual amenities of the green
       belt. The buildings…would be set back from the river more than the existing
       development on the site. A potentially attractive landscape strip would replace the
       existing hardstanding in front of the river and existing utilitarian commercial buildings
       would be replaced by buildings that in my judgement reflected the style of the semi
       detached development to the west, albeit at a significantly greater scale. I consider
       that the buildings would not be unduly dominant in views from the north and would
       present a modern and attractive frontage to the river”

       In view of these comments it is considered that objection could not be raised to this
       aspect of the scheme, which is considered to be acceptable.

       Archaeology

7.42   The applicants have submitted an archaeology evaluation, which has been assessed
       by the County Archaeology Officer. Seven evaluation trenches were excavated
       across the site to determine the presence or absence of archaeological features.
       With the exception of natural tree/root hollows and a possible old pond or
       watercourse, no archaeological features were revealed. As a consequence the
       Archaeological Officer agrees that no further archaeological work is required on the
       site.




                                                   - C15 -
       Renewable Energy

7.43   Under the previous application, 05/01132/FUL, Surrey County Council (Strategic
       Planning) raised objection under Structure Plan Policy SE2 as no provision had been
       made for the use of renewable energy. The Planning Committee resolved to refuse it
       on the following ground:

       “From the information submitted in the application the Council is not satisfied that the
       design of the development will result in a minimum of 10% of the energy requirement
       of the scheme being provided by renewable resources. The proposal is thus
       considered contrary to Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 2004.”

7.44   The applicant submitted Planning and Design Statements with this application, which
       considered the reason for refusal. Section 6 of the applicant’s Design Statement
       refers to the sustainable design approach which will include low energy use within the
       buildings, using a Green Tariff electricity supplier, the use of renewable materials
       wherever possible, minimising potential pollution from the development, ensuring
       lower energy consumption, having regard to health and well-being and management
       measures. Reference is also made to sustainable transport measures.

7.45   The applicant’s agent was contacted as it was felt that these provisions did not
       sufficiently address the reason for refusal on the last planning application and did not
       meet the requirements of Policy SE2 in providing on site renewable energy. The
       applicant responded by confirming that they had commissioned a report on
       renewable energy. An Energy Statement and Sustainability Report have now been
       submitted. The Energy Report in particular, provides an assessment of the overall
       energy requirements and associated carbon dioxide emissions for the proposed
       development initially using standard solutions, and then proposes further suitable
       energy saving and renewable energy measures. With regard to on-site renewable
       energy, the applicant proposes to install solar water panels for use on 38 of the
       dwellings (one panel for each of those units) in order to meet the 10% renewable
       energy requirement. The solar panels would all be located at roof level on southern
       aspect roofs. A site layout plan of the proposed development has been submitted with
       the report and shows the approximate location of the 38 new solar panels. Whilst a
       sample photograph has been submitted showing how the solar panel will appear on a
       building, I consider it important that detailed architectural elevation plans are
       submitted with the application to show how the proposed panels will appear in context
       with the new buildings. I have requested the applicant to submit new drawings
       accordingly and I will report them at the meeting. Furthermore, whilst the predicted
       energy figures appear to be acceptable in principle, further clarification is required on
       some of the calculations (the applicant has been advised of this). Consequently,
       subject to receiving additional plans and the requested further information, the
       proposed provision of on-site renewable energy is considered acceptable.


       Summary

7.46   The previous planning application for the erection of 98 dwellings (03/00057/FUL)
       was dismissed on appeal in October 2005. The Planning Inspector, in his report,
       concluded that he was satisfied that the living conditions of prospective residents
       would be acceptable albeit that some of the proposed structures would be obtrusive
       and dominant in the street scene and the outlook from some flats would not be of a
       high standard. He also considered that it would not materially adversely affect the
       visual amenities of the Green Belt to the north of the site. However he concluded that
       the “scheme as a whole would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the



                                                 - C16 -
       character and appearance of the area because of the dominant appearance of the
       western element of” the proposed block of flats immediately to the east of the access
       fronting Gaston Way. He concludes by considering that “the impact of this building
       on the character and appearance of the locality would be so harmful that planning
       permission should be withheld for this scheme. The Inspector also had some
       concern with overlooking to the rear of no. 2 Catlin Crescent from the proposed
       dormer windows and although this matter would not justify withholding planning
       permission for the development, it did add some weight to his conclusions that the
       “development would cause harm in the locality”.

7.47   The applicants have amended the scheme as summarised in paragraph 3.12 above.
       In particular they have proposed that the “dominant” block, as referred to by the
       Inspector is solely two storey. In addition, the front dormer windows in the two
       dwellings facing the side garden of no. 2 Catlin Crescent have been deleted. These
       amendments therefore overcome the Inspector’s reasons for dismissing the appeal
       for 98 dwellings. I am satisfied that had these amendments been incorporated in the
       previous scheme considered by the Planning Inspector, the appeal would have been
       allowed. Indeed, the Inspector in his report stated, in relation to his concerns over the
       building to the east of the access facing Gaston Way (Block L) that:

       “I have considered whether this aspect of the scheme could be controlled by means
       of a condition but I am mindful that the second floor would provide two units of
       affordable housing as set out in the relevant S106 unilateral undertaking submitted by
       the appellant. The loss of these units would have an impact on the percentage of
       affordable housing that would be provided”.

7.48   The current scheme for 96 dwellings provides an acceptable sense of openness
       within the site and improved relationship to adjoining properties. The provision of
       housing on this site, which is located within the urban area, is acceptable. Given the
       existing use value of the site, the applicant has provided sufficient affordable housing
       and adequate social rented accommodation. The County Highway Authority has
       advised that the previous industrial use generates more traffic than the proposed
       residential use. In addition it should be noted that the proposal complies with the
       Council’s maximum parking standards. Subject to the off site alterations required by
       the County Highway Authority, which will be financed by the applicant, and some
       measures aimed at reducing reliance on the private car by the provision of travel
       vouchers and cycle parking, the proposal is acceptable on transportation grounds.
       The design and layout has an acceptable relationship with adjoining properties and
       the character of the area and the proposals are of an acceptable design. The
       proposal does include the provision of open space and amenity space around the
       buildings. The impact on the SNCI is acceptable and the development has an
       acceptable impact when viewed on the Green Belt. There is no objection on flooding,
       archaeology, noise or contamination grounds. Finally, the applicant has now
       submitted details to indicate that 10% of the total energy requirements of the
       development will be provided by way of on-site renewable energy sources. Subject to
       receiving additional plans to show that the proposed solar panels will have a
       satisfactory appearance, and further clarification on the information in the submitted
       Energy Statement, the application is considered acceptable and is therefore
       recommended for approval.


8.0    Recommendation

8.1    Subject to the applicant entering into appropriate legal agreements to secure the
       following:



                                                 - C17 -
1. To provide 34 affordable housing units on site built in accordance with current
   Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards: the details of which shall
   be agreed with the Council’s Head of Planning Services and Housing Strategy.

    The split of the type of affordable housing shall be 71% (24 units) for rent and
     29% (10 units) for shared ownership.

    Prior to implementation the Registered Social Landlord (RSL) shall enter into a
     Nominations Agreement in respect of the affordable housing (in order that the
     social housing meets local needs).

    Build and complete 34 affordable units and hand over to the Registered Social
     Landlord for occupation in accordance with a timescale to be agreed with the
     Council.

2. To provide open space as shown on drawing no. A4941/2.3/331 received on 30
   June 2006 to which the public shall have access to the open space adjoining the
   River Ash and the open space in the centre of the site in perpetuity.

3. Subject to and prior to the grant of planning permission the applicant agreeing
   with Surrey County Council a ceiling figure for Surrey County Council’s
   reasonable costs to extend the waiting restrictions along Govett Avenue/Gaston
   Way to the east and west of the site access, the County Highway Authority
   recommend that:

    An appropriate agreement be used to secure the applicant funding the extension
     of waiting restrictions along Govett Avenue/Gaston Way to the east and west of
     the site access.



GRANT, subject to the following conditions:-

1.       DURATION NON OUTLINE (C002).

2.      MATERIALS (C034).

3.      MEANS OF ENCLOSURE – DETAILS REQUIRED (C032).
        Insert "in accordance with a timetable…"

4.      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.

5.      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




                                               - C18 -
      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.

6.    No development shall take place until:

      a. A comprehensive desk-top study, carried out to identify and evaluate all
         potential sources and impacts of land and/or groundwater contamination
         relevant to the site, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
         Local Planning Authority.

      b. Where any such potential sources and impacts have been identified, a site
         investigation has been carried out to fully characterise the nature and
         extent of any land and/or groundwater contamination and its implications.
         The site investigation shall not be commenced until the extent and
         methodology of the site investigation have been agreed in writing with the
         Local Planning Authority.

      c. A written method statement for the remediation of land and/or groundwater
         contamination affecting the site has been agreed in writing with the Local
         Planning Authority prior to the commencement of remediation. The
         method statement shall include an implementation timetable monitoring
         proposals, and a remediation verification methodology.

      d. Thereafter the development may commence, with the site being
         remediated in accordance with the approved method statement, with no
         deviation from the statement without the express written agreement of the
         Local Planning Authority.

7.    Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of
      the means of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
      the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be completed in
      accordance with the agreed details.

8.    TREE PROTECTION DETAILS REQUIRED (C025).

9.    Prior to the commencement of the development, drawings shall be submitted
      to, and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority, which show
      the typical external detailing to be provided on the buildings (to include details
      of lintel, cill, eaves, feature brickwork and stonework, etc). The buildings shall
      be constructed thereafter in accordance with those details.

10.   No development shall take place until a survey to ascertain the presence of
      bats on the site has been undertaken and the results provided to the local
      planning authority. A scheme setting out measures to protect any such
      species present and likely to be affected by the development hereby permitted
      shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
      The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with a timetable
      agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

11.   Prior to the sale of any of the proposed dwellings the initiatives set out in the
      Travel Statement titled “Rodd Industrial Estate, Gaston Way, Shepperton –
      Travel Statement – Permission Homes (South East) Ltd” issued on




                                           - C19 -
      16/08/2006 by WSP Development and Transportation, shall be fully
      implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation
      with the County Highway Authority.

12.   The development shall not be occupied until the access to Govett Avenue has
      been modified in accordance with WSP plan 0172/SK/05 and the proposed
      accesses to Catlin Crescent have been constructed in accordance with the
      approved plans.

13.   No new development shall be occupied until space has been laid out within
      the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles/cycles to be
      parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in
      forward gear. The parking/turning areas shall be used and retained
      exclusively for their designated use.

14.   The finished floor levels of the development are to be set at 11.60m AOD
      (which equates to the 1 in 100 +20% level).

15.   Surface water source control measures shall be carried out in accordance
      with details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
      Local Planning Authority before development commences.

16.   No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.

17.   The construction of the surface & foul drainage system shall be carried out in
      accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
      Planning Authority before the development commences.

18.   The construction of the site foundations shall be carried out in accordance
      with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
      Authority before the development commences.

19.   There shall be no new development including hardstanding and fences within
      a buffer zone 8 metres wide alongside the River Ash.

20.   There shall be no storage of materials within 8 metres of the River Ash. This
      must be suitably marked and protected during development and there shall be
      no access during development within this area. There shall be no fires,
      dumping or tracking of machinery within this area.

21.   A landscape management plan, including long-term design objectives, a
      planting scheme, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules
      for all landscape areas and open space, other than small, privately owned
      domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
      Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the
      development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape
      management plan shall be carried out as approved.

22.   RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT –
      GENERAL (C054).

23.   TREES TO BE MAINTAINED (C027).

24.   PLANTING ON SITE – DETAILS REQUIRED (C023).
      Insert “12 months”.




                                           - C20 -
25.   Details of the cycle parking provision to include one space per residential flat
      shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
      The development shall be completed in accordance with the agreed details.

26.   ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR REFUSE DETAILS REQUIRED (C037).

27.   OBSCURE GLAZING (C042).
      Insert “first”, “eastern elevation of block D”.

28.   NO FURTHER OPENINGS (C044).
      Insert “eastern side” delete “the” add “block D”.

29.   NO WINDOW OPENINGS (C043).
      Insert “southern side elevation”, delete “the”, add “plot 88”.

30.   No demolition of any building shall take place during the bird nesting season
      (March - August), unless previously agreed in writing by the Local Planning
      Authority.

31.   The proposed development shall incorporate facilities to provide 10% of the
      total energy consumption of the building from renewable energy sources in
      accordance with the Energy Statement and plan no. RHC/SK1 received 30th
      August 2006 hereby approved. These facilities shall be provided and
      maintained thereafter.


REASONS

1.    R002.

2.    R034.

3.    R032.

4-5   In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause
      inconvenience to other highway users.

6.    To protect the amenities of future residents and the environment from the
      effects of potentially harmful substances and to prevent pollution of the water
      environment. + Note 94(a).

7.    To ensue an acceptable development and to protect the amenity of the
      locality.

8.    R025

9.    To ensure that the development has a satisfactory appearance.

10.   In the interest of nature conservation.

11.   HR2

12-13 HR1

14.   To prevent the increased risk of flooding due to impedance of flood flows and
      reduction of flood storage capacity.



                                           - C21 -
15.     To prevent the increased risk of flooding and to improve water quality.

16.     To prevent pollution of ground water.

17.     To prevent pollution of the water environment.

18.     To prevent pollution of groundwater.

19.     To maintain the character and value of the watercourse and provide
        undisturbed refuges for wildlife using the river corridor.

20.     To reduce the impact of the proposed development on wildlife habitats
        upstream and downstream, including bankside habitats.

21.     To protect/conserve the natural features and character of the area.

22.     To protect the amenity of the area.

23.     R025.

24.     R023.

25.     To ensure a sustainable development and to encourage travel other than by
        the private car.

26.     R037.

27.     R042.

28.     R044.

29.     R043.

30.     In the interest of nature conservation.

31.     To ensure that the proposal complies with Policy SE2 of the Surrey Structure
        Plan.


INFORMATIVES TO APPLICANT

1.    Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage
      Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required
      for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the
      brink of the River Ash main river. Contact the Environment Agency’s
      Development Control on 0127 645 4324.

2.    Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of
      the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade
      effluent into controlled waters or for any discharge or trade effluent from
      buildings or fixed plant into or onto ground or into waters which are not controlled
      waters. Such consent may be withheld. Contact the Environment Agency’s
      Consent Department on 08708 506506 for further details.




                                               - C22 -
3.   Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, the prior written consent of
     the Environment Agency is required for dewatering from any excavation or
     development to a surface watercourse. Contact the Environment Agency’s
     Consent Department on 08708 506506 for further details.

4.   H(Inf) 7.

5.   H(Inf)8.

6.   H(Inf)12.

7.   H(inf) 13.

8.   H(Inf) 15.

9.   H(Inf) 23.

10. S.I.xa (Protection Against Landfill Gas Ingress & Building Regulation
    Requirements)

11. The applicant is advised to contact Thames Water at the earliest opportunity as
    he may be required to fund improvements to the local water and sewerage
    infrastructure. Please contact Thames Water and the Three Valleys Water
    Company prior to any works taking place on site, including any demolition works.

12. I03.

13. I07.

14. 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 Borough Local Plan 2001: RU11, GB1, GB, RU5, RU6, RU11, R9,
     BE1, BE2, BE5, BE6, BE8, BE11, BE15, BE26, BE28, BE29, BE31, BE32, H1,
     H2, H5, H6, EM2, EM3, M1, M5, M6, M8, M9, M13, M14.

     Surrey Structure Plan: L01, L02, L04, L05, L07, L08, L09, SE2, SE3, SE4, SE6,
     SE7, SE8, SE10, DN1, DN2, DN3, DN4, DN5, DN6, DN10, DN11, DN12, DN14.



APPENDICES

Appendix 1:       Proposal Site Layout

Appendix 2:       Site layout of appeal scheme (03/00057/FUL)




                                         - C23 -

								
To top