report to south area planning sub-committee list a...

Report to South Area Planning Sub-Committee – List A – Applications for Decision

Application No: 2019/1648 Application Type: FULL

Case Officer: Aline Hyde Ward: Oxshott and Stoke DAbernon Ward

Location: 7 Hawkhurst Cobham Surrey KT11 2QX

Proposal: Detached two-storey house with detached garage, alterations to fenestration of existing house and new access.

Applicant: Ms D El Litany

Agent: Mrs Iris Kouneni Urban Matrix Suite 2 53a High Street Esher Surrey KT10 9RQ

Decision Level: If Permit – Sub-Committee If Refuse – Sub-Committee

Recommendation: Refuse

At the meeting of the South Area Planning Sub-Committee on 4th November 2019, Members resolved to grant permission contrary to the officer’s recommendation and subject to the applicant’s agreement to pre-commencement conditions.

Agreement has been reached with the exception of the following two conditions: CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN Prior to the commencement of the development, an appropriately detailed Construction and Environment Management Plan detailing how protected habitats and species will be protected from any adverse impacts as a result of construction, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The document must include the following: risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities, practical measures to avoid and reduce impacts during construction, the location and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity features, responsible persons and lines of communication and use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. Reason: To ensure the protection of protected species and habitats in accordance with Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy 2011 and Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015. POTENTIAL LAND CONTAMINATION To ensure the potential for contamination has been investigated and the necessary action taken to make the development site suitable for its proposed use, the following steps must be completed to the satisfaction of the Council. No demolition, site clearance or construction shall be commenced until step (a) has been completed by a competent person. If part (a) identifies the need for step (b), then this shall also be completed before any site clearance, demolition or construction commence. Furthermore, there shall be no occupation of any part of the site by any end user prior to meeting the terms of this condition in full. a) Preliminary Investigation of the Site A preliminary investigation shall be carried out by a competent person prior to any site clearance or demolition, to assess the condition of the land to be re-developed, in respect of contamination. The preliminary investigation must, as a minimum, include a desk-based evaluation, site walkover, asbestos assessment of the existing buildings and Conceptual Site Model and may include intrusive investigation. A written report of the investigation shall be submitted to the Council for written approval. If the Council are satisfied that there is a significant possibility that the site could pose a significant risk to future occupiers under its proposed redevelopment use as a result of contamination, then the following additional steps shall also be carried out. b) Site Investigation, Method Statement and Remediation (i) A written site-specific investigation plan using the information obtained from the preliminary investigation, providing details of the investigation for soil, gas and controlled waters where appropriate, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Council.

(ii) The site investigation shall be undertaken in accordance with the scheme agreed by the Borough Council. The results of the site investigation, a refined conceptual model and a risk assessment of any contamination found shall be submitted in writing to, and approved by, the Council. (iii) A written Method Statement and Verification Plan detailing any remediation requirements and how compliance with these requirements shall be demonstrated shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Council. c) Development in accordance with the Method Statement The development of the site shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement, and any addenda submitted by the developer, and agreed in writing by the Borough Council. Any post remediation monitoring identified in the Method statement, shall be installed by the developer within the timescales identified in the Method Statement and maintained and operated for as long as identified by the Method Statement. d) Unsuspected Contamination If, during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and had approved by the Council, a written addendum to the Method Statement detailing how the unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. e) Piling Development approved by this permission shall not commence unless a Foundation Works Risk Assessment for piling foundations (if piling is to be used on site) has been submitted to, and agreed in writing, by the Borough Council. The piling shall be undertaken only in accordance with the method outlined in the approved Foundation Works Risk Assessment. f) Imported material Clean, uncontaminated rock, soil, brick rubble, crushed concrete or ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material. The developer shall not import any material until a sampling program, including appropriate import criteria for the proposed end use and frequency of sampling, has been submitted in writing, and approved by, the Council. The Developer shall carry out the approved sampling program to check that all imported material conforms to the agreed criteria. Where the permitted end use is residential, the sampling program shall also include samples taken from the imported material after final placement. Written confirmation of the suitability of all imported materials shall be provided to the Council as part of step (g). This shall include both the results of the sampling program and also details of the origin, transport, final deposition and any temporary stockpiling of the imported materials. g) Completion of Remediation and Verification Report Verification by an independent, competent person must be carried out prior to occupation of any part of the site by any end user. Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statement, and before occupation of any part of the site by any end user, a written Verification Report shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Council providing verification that the required works regarding decontamination and installation of post remediation monitoring, have been carried out in accordance with the agreed Method Statement and any addenda thereto. The verification shall be carried out and reported by an independent, competent person, stating that remediation was carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and that the site is suitable for the permitted end use. Reason: To avoid adverse effects from pollution on the environment, harm to human health or general amenity, in accordance with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. The applicant has declined to agree to the imposition of these conditions. As such, in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph: 038 Reference ID: 21a-038-20180615) the local planning authority must either:

i. grant planning permission without the pre-commencement condition ii. seek written agreement to an alternative pre-commencement condition, or iii. refuse to grant permission (if it considers that the disputed pre-commencement

condition is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms).

The Construction Environmental Management Plan is considered necessary to comply with Policy DM21 of the Development Management Plan 2015. In particular, it is necessary to set out measures to avoid impacts on nesting birds and to set out a procedure to follow should protected species be found. It is noted that the ecology report submitted by the applicant in support of their application recommends that a Construction Environmental Management Plan be produced. It is necessary for this to be submitted and approved prior to carrying out any further works on the site. Without this condition, it is considered that the impact on biodiversity would be unacceptable. The condition relating to contaminated land is considered necessary to ensure the health and safety of the site’s occupiers, and to comply with Policy DM5 of the Development Management Plan 2015. The Council’s Environmental Services team have noted that the site is located on a former brickworks, directly on an excavated pit as shown on the 1913 Ordnance Survey map. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site has already been partially excavated, it is necessary for additional information to be provided to ensure that the risks are fully understood and to inform any remediation measures that may prove necessary. It is acknowledged that neither of these conditions was included on the site’s previous permission (ref. 2017/3481). These conditions were recommended by the relevant consultees and so their omittance must be put down to human error. Whilst the applicant’s fallback position (being the previous permission of a materially different scheme) is acknowledged, it is considered that the conditions recommended are reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable, and that the error in excluding them from the previous decision notice should not be compounded. Further, it is considered that the risk to the health and safety of the occupiers, as well as to biodiversity in and around the site, is sufficient to outweigh the fallback position. Accordingly, the recommendation is to refuse permission for the following reasons: 1) In the absence of the applicant’s agreement to submit a Construction Environmental

Management Plan prior to the commencement of further works on the site, the development would result in unacceptable risk to nesting birds and protected species. This is contrary to Policy DM21 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

2) In the absence of the applicant’s agreement to submit a Preliminary Site Investigation prior to the commencement of further works on the site, the potential for contamination would result in unacceptable risk to the health and safety of construction workers and the future occupiers of the site. This is contrary to Policy DM5 of the Development Management Plan 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

The original report to the Sub-Committee is set out below.

This application has been referred to the Sub-Committee by Councillor Burley if the officer recommendation is to refuse permission.

R e p o r t

Description

1. The application site is located at the southern end of Hawkhurst. The site is currently occupied by a detached dwelling. The site is fairly level save for the southern end of the site which drops down to meet the lake to the west. The site falls within the ‘Fairmile’ character area as identified in the Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside Companion Guide to the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document 2012. Constraints

2. The relevant planning constraints are:

• Adjoining Green Belt

• Potentially contaminated land

• 5km buffer of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Policy

3. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application:

Core Strategy 2011 CS1 – Spatial Strategy

CS10 – Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside CS15 – Biodiversity CS17 – Local Character, Density and Design

Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development DM2 – Design and amenity DM4 – Comprehensive development DM5 – Pollution DM6 – Landscape and trees DM7 – Access and parking DM8 – Refuse, recycling and external plant DM10 – Housing DM21 – Nature conservation and biodiversity

Design & Character SPD 2012 Companion Guide: Cobham, Oxshott, Stoke D’Abernon and Downside Developers Contributions SPD 2012

4. Relevant Planning History

Proposal

5. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a two-storey detached dwellinghouse with a detached garage and a new vehicular access.

6. The proposed dwellinghouse would have a width of 18.3m, a depth of 11.9m and a maximum height of 7.5m.

7. The proposal differs from application ref. 2017/3481 as it is proposed that the existing dwellinghouse on the site be retained as a separate dwelling (as opposed to its previously-approved use as accommodation ancillary to the new dwelling), albeit with some minor changes to fenestration. In addition, the new dwelling has been re-sited approximately 3.1 further south-west than previously approved (closer to the lake) and now includes a detached garage set forward of the house. Representations

8. The Council notified 11 neighbouring properties, and a site notice was also displayed.

Reference Description Decision

2017/3481 Erection of two-storey detached dwelling following demolition of existing garage and the conversion of existing dwelling to ancillary accommodation and garaging incorporating front and rear porch and alterations to fenestration.

Granted Permission

2015/4395 Part two/part single storey rear extension and single storey side extension

Granted Permission

9. Seven letters of objection from five separate households were received, commenting on the following:

• Encroachment of an existing fence on to neighbouring land

• Use of security cameras monitoring public areas in the vicinity of the site

• The applicant’s alleged historical conflict with people using the lake for fishing

• Loss of privacy

• Sub-division of the land

• Out of character for the area, building too close to the lake, small amenity spaces

• Loss of views from the lake and adjoining SNCI

• Size of the detached garage

• Contrary to covenants on the land

• Loss of trees

• Impact on protected species, particularly Great Crested Newts, and other wildlife

• No electric vehicle charging points proposed

• Highway safety concerns regarding the proposed vehicular access

• Proposal does not include SuDS or any provision for climate change

10. Two letters of support were received. 11. Consultations

12. Council’s Contaminated Land Officer – no objection subject to condition and informative.

13. Natural England – no objection.

14. Council’s Countryside Officer – objection.

15. Tree Officer – no objections subject to conditions.

Positive and Proactive Engagement

16. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to work with the

applicant in a positive and proactive manner to resolve problems before the application is submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. This requirement is met within Elmbridge through the availability of pre-application advice.

17. No formal pre-application advice was sought prior to the submission of this application.

Planning Considerations

18. The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are:

• The principle of the development

• Affordable housing

• The design of the proposal and its impact on the character and appearance of the area

• The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

• The provision of a suitable residential environment

• The impact on highway safety and parking

• The impact on trees

• The impact on biodiversity

• The impact on flood risk

• Financial considerations

The principle of the development

19. The Core Strategy indicates that there is scope for residential development through the redevelopment of existing sites with well-designed schemes that integrate with and enhance the local character. The new development is required to deliver high quality design, which maximises the efficient use of land and which responds to the positive features of individual locations; integrating sensitively with locally distinct townscape while protecting the amenities of those living in the area. Innovative contemporary design that embraces sustainability and

improves local character will be supported. Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy advises that the Council promotes development that contributes to an overall housing target of 40 dwellings per hectare and achieves a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). The proposal would represent development density of 11.7dph.

20. Paragraph 120 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account (a) the identified need for different types of housing and other forms of development, and the availability of land for accommodating it”. The latest measure of housing need is the 2016 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) for Kingston and North Surrey. The SHMA identifies the need within Elmbridge for smaller 1-2 bedroom units, with some need for 3 bedroom units. Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy states that development the Council will seek to secure a range of housing types and sizes reflecting the most up to date SHMA. The proposal under consideration here would result in an additional four-bedroomed dwelling, so would not meet the identified need within the borough.

21. The NPPF in regard to the making effective use of land, states at para. 117:

‘Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other uses, whilst safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions’.

22. In regard to achieving appropriate densities, Para. 123 states:

‘Where there is an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it is especially important that planning policies and decisions avoid homes being built at low densities, and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site’,

23. This is supported by point c) of Para. 123 which states:

‘local planning authorities should refuse applications which they consider fail to make efficient use of land, taking into account the policies in this Framework. In this context, when considering applications for housing, authorities should take a flexible approach in applying policies or guidance relating to daylight and sunlight, where they would otherwise inhibit making efficient use of a site (as long as the resulting scheme would provide acceptable living standards).’

24. The proposal would not meet locally adopted density policy (minimum of 30dph), and so

would not make the most efficient use of land. As identified above, the NPPF requires development to meet the most up to date measure of housing need (the 2016 SHMA). The applicant has attempted to overcome the requirement to provide smaller units by converting one the existing bedrooms in the main house to an en-suite bathroom (though it is noted that there is no door linking the en-suite to a bedroom, so it would effectively be a large family bathroom), leaving the existing house with 3 bedrooms. However, this is an internal alteration made without the requirement to secure planning permission, and could be easily reversed at a later date. It is considered that this room is more than sufficient in size to serve as a habitable room, having a floorspace of 9.3sq.m compared to the recommended minimum floorspace for a single bedroom of 7.5sq.m. (Government’s nationally-described space standards). The Council’s Development Management Advice Note 1: Understanding Housing Need states that “the Council will consider any first floor and above rooms leading off a landing/hallway with a window and capable of accommodating a single bed as a bedroom”. As such, the proposal would result in two four-bedroomed units occupying the existing site.

25. The proposal would fail to make the most efficient use of land in the urban area, it would not deliver housing which meets the most up to date measure of housing need and would not deliver housing at a density which would comply with the minimum density requirement set out in Policy CS17. The proposal would therefore be unacceptable in principle at the density and housing mix proposed as it would not meet the requirements of local and national planning policy.

26. The Council acknowledges that it is unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. As such paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF is engaged. The paragraph states that

decision takers should grant permission where policies most important for determining the application (in this case relating to the supply of housing) are out of date, unless ‘the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole’. It is considered the provision of development at a density which would not make most efficient use of land nor meet the minimum density requirement, and which would not contribute to the provision of houses which meet the most up to date measure of housing need would represent an adverse impact which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole, for those reasons given in the above paragraphs. This position has been endorsed at appeal. Affordable housing

27. Policy CS21: Affordable Housing of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) requires that development resulting in the net gain of 1 - 4 residential units should provide 20% of the gross number of dwellings on-site as a financial contribution. For schemes with 5 units or more, on-site provision of affordable units is required. It is acknowledged that a revised National Planning Policy Framework has been published and is a material consideration in the determination of all relevant planning applications. However, as set out in Section 38(6) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the starting point for any decision is the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. As set out in paragraph 2 of the NPPF, this approach is required by planning law. It is therefore for the decision-maker to determine the weight to be applied.

28. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that ‘provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)’. Elmbridge Borough is not a designated rural area and major development sites are defined in the NPPF as development of 10 or more homes, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares of more. Nevertheless, as set out in paragraph 3 of the NPPF, the Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes). In this context the following NPPF policies are also relevant in regard to the Council’s continuation to apply policy CS21.

29. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF state that within the context of significantly boosting the supply of

homes ‘… that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed’. Paragraph 61 states ‘… the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing…’ Finally, paragraph 62 states: ‘Where a need for affordable housing is identified, planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required, and expect it to be on-site unless: a) off-site provision or an appropriate financial contribution in lieu can be robustly justified…’

30. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF is a clear continuation of the approach to developer contributions on small sites as set out in Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) (28 November 2014) and subsequent changes to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) dated 19 May 2016. In response to this policy change, the Council set out in its Statement on the WMS (Update – February 2017), that its position was to continue to consider on a case by case basis whether local circumstances with regard to affordable housing and the nature of the development sites in the Borough were sufficient to warrant the application of policy CS21, or whether greater weight should be attached to the WMS and changes to PPG.

31. The Council’s approach has been repeatedly upheld by Appeal Inspectors recognising that policy CS21 was consistent with other policies of the NPPF (paragraphs 47 and 50 (NPPF, 2012)) which required local planning authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified. Furthermore, several Appeal Inspectors noted that whilst the WMS was a material consideration of considerable importance and weight, the intention of the WMS is to ensure that financial contributions do not become a disproportionate burden for small scale developers and thus frustrate housing supply. Appeal Inspectors have continuously addressed the Council’s Statement on the WMS (referenced above) and the significant difficulty in the delivery of affordable housing in the

least affordable authority in England outside of London, noting that small sites make a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing in the Borough.

32. Appeal Inspectors have also stated that there has been no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of policy CS21 are placing an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on developers. As a consequence, it has been found that whilst the WMS carried considerable weight, Inspectors do not consider it to outweigh the development plan given the acute and substantial need for affordable housing in the Borough (as evidenced by the Kingston & North-East Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) (2016) and the importance of delivery through small sites towards this.

33. On the basis of the above and the evidence in relation to local housing need, affordability and

housing land supply (as summarised in the Council’s Statement dated October 2018), the Council will continue with its approach to apply Policy CS21 in the decision-making process where relevant. The Council has provided clear evidence of the acute need for affordable housing whereas, little evidence has been submitted by applicants suggesting that policy CS21 is having a disproportionate affect on small schemes. Where evidence is submitted to the contrary, the Council will, in accordance with policy CS21 and the Development Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2012), allow flexibility.

34. In this case, the applicant has indicated their willingness to pay the financial contribution required by policy and a unilateral undertaking has been received to secure this. The design of the proposal and its impact on the character and appearance of the area

35. The proposal involves the creation of a new dwelling on the site (referred as the new dwelling within this report) and alterations to the fenestration of the existing house which is to be retained (referred as the existing dwelling within this report).

36. The proposed new dwelling would be located to the south west of the existing dwelling house. Whilst there are no examples of comparable layouts within the immediate vicinity, it is considered due to the siting at the end of the road that the introduction of a new building in this location would not have an unacceptable harmful impact on the character of the area, streetscene or when viewed from the lake and adjoining Green Belt to the south. It is acknowledged that there are no other examples in the immediate vicinity of two buildings within a single plot or being in proximity to the lake, but it is considered the size and position of this plot means the addition of a new building would not unacceptably harm the character of the area.

37. It is noted that the new dwelling would have a significantly larger footprint that the existing dwelling, and larger than that generally observed in the surrounding area. Whilst the scale and bulk of the building would be considerable, it is acknowledged that permission has already been granted for a very similar building (albeit in a slightly different position) under application ref. 2017/3481. The siting of the dwelling further to the south-west is not considered to significantly affect the assessment in relation to design and character, in this instance.

38. The detached garage would be set to the north-east of the new dwelling and would be single-storey. Its scale and design is such that it would appear obviously subservient to the new dwelling, and is considered acceptable.

39. The proposal would result in the creation of an enclosed frontage for the new dwelling, to be screened using hedgerow planting and a set of timber entrance gates and posts. Though the other properties observed along Hawkhurst benefit from generally open, un-gated frontages, given the previous permission and the site’s location at the end of a cul-de-sac it is not considered that the harm arising from the gates would be sufficient to warrant the application’s refusal. The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties

40. The detached single-storey garage would be approximately 15m away from the closest part of No. 8 Hawkhurst, with the new house no less than 22m away. The building would be located to the south of No. 8 but due to the physical separation and siting, it is not considered that the

proposal would appearing overbearing or result in a loss of outlook, having regard to the existing outlook which is primarily south-west and overlooks the lake. It is further not considered that the proposal would result in harm to the provision of natural light to No. 8, given the distances involved.

41. The proposed new dwelling would include window openings on its front (north-eastern) elevation at ground and first floor, which would allow views towards No. 8. It is considered the separation between these buildings (minimum of 20m), existing boundary treatment and their staggered relationship, would mean that an unacceptable loss of privacy would not occur to the occupiers of this property. Further to this the applicant has designed the dwelling so that those first floor windows nearest to No. 8 would serve bathrooms and would be obscurely glazed, which could be controlled by condition. On the basis of the above it is considered the impact on privacy enjoyed by No. 8 would be acceptable.

42. The proposed hardstanding on the frontage of the retained dwelling would extend up to the side boundary with No. 8. Whilst there would be some increase in the noise generated by use of this area in comparison to the existing situation (in which there is no vehicular access on to this area of the site), it is not considered that some noise associated with movements to and from the dwellinghouse is unusual for residential areas and it is further not considered that it would be unacceptably harmful to the amenities of this occupier.

43. There would be a minimum distance of 18.8m between the rear elevation of the retained dwelling and the front elevation of the new house. On the basis that the front elevation of the new house is set much further to the south-east that than the retained building (with minimal overlap) it is considered that this distance is sufficient to ensure that the privacy of both occupiers would be respected. The distance is also sufficient to ensure that the occupants of the retained dwelling would not suffer loss of light, nor an overbearing impact arising from the development. The depth of the rear garden for the retained building is sufficient to ensure that occupants would not suffer unacceptable noise disturbance arising from vehicle movements travelling to and from the new house.

44. The proposed alterations to the existing dwelling are not considered to give rise to a harmful impact to neighbouring amenity by virtue of loss of light, outlook, privacy or overbearing impact by virtue of the relatively limited changes to this building. The provision of a suitable residential environment

45. The proposal would provide generous and spacious accommodation far exceeding the requirements of the Government’s Nationally Described Space Standards. There would be suitable outlook, natural lighting and ventilation. The rear amenity space, with a depth of approximately 19.1m, would be commensurate with the size of the new dwelling. The existing dwelling would be left with a garden depth of 11m, which is in line with the minimum standard required by the Council.

46. There would be ample space within the garage or to the side of the properties to store the necessary refuse and recycling receptacles. The impact on highway safety and parking

47. The proposal would include the creation of a new vehicular crossover to serve the retained dwelling. Whilst this located on the inside of a bend, it is almost at the end of the cul-de-sac and so high vehicle speeds or numbers would not be expected to occur. The positioning of the access is therefore not considered to result in harm to highway safety. The limited scale of the development ensures that there would be no significant impact in terms of net traffic generation or highway capacity.

48. There would be sufficient space on the properties’ frontages for the off-street parking of vehicles. The impact on trees

49. The Council’s Tree Officer has reviewed the proposal. Supporting arboricultural information was provided, and it was noted that the site benefits from some trees of merit. The Tree

Officer raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions concerning the arrangement of a pre-commencement inspection, use of the approved tree protection measures and the retention of the existing trees. The impact on biodiversity

50. The application was supported by habitat survey and preliminary bat roost assessment, on which Surrey Wildlife Trust has been consulted. The Council’s Countryside Officer has also reviewed the scheme, and raised concerns regarding the proximity of the new dwellinghouse to the lake and potential harm arising to foraging bats and to grazing and nesting wildfowl.

51. Surrey Wildlife Trust has reviewed the submitted documentation, and requested confirmation from the applicant’s ecologist that no further surveys would be required. Subject to conditions concerning submission of an external lighting strategy and Construction Environmental Management Plan as well as biodiversity enhancements and a precautionary method of working to avoid harm to reptiles and amphibians, no objection to the development was raised.

52. The site is located within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and as such, is liable to make a financial contribution towards Strategic Management and Monitoring. A unilateral undertaking to secure this contribution has been provided. Natural England was consulted on an Appropriate Assessment produced in relation to the application, and raised no objection subject to the financial contribution. The impact on flood risk

53. The application site is located within Flood Zone 1. It would be located above the level of the adjoining lake, and is not located in an area classified at being at risk of surface water flooding. The proposal would therefore not impact upon flooding. Financial considerations

54. Section 70 subsection 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the Council. New Homes Bonus

55. The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 4 years. It is based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. The New Homes Bonus Scheme Grant Determination for 2019/20 is £957,930 (approx.).

56. Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the New Homes Bonus would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development. Community Infrastructure Levy

57. The proposed development is liable to pay CIL. The relevant documentation to secure the contribution has been provided.

Matters raised in Representations

58. The material planning considerations have been addressed within the above report.

Conclusion

59. The proposal, would, by reason of its low density and unit mix fail to make the most efficient

and effective use of land within the urban area in order to meet the Borough’s identified housing need. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS17 and CS19 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the revised National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

The proposed development does require a CIL payment.

Recommendation: Refuse

1:500 @ A1 JULY 17IK

LOCATION PLAN

001

0490_PL02

7 HAWKHURST, COBHAM,

SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

DESIGN COPYRIGHT IS THE PROPERTY OF

Urban Matrix Ltd AND MUST NOT BE COPIED

WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT

B

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 28/06/2019 Revised scaleB 03/07/2019 Revised boundary line

36.55

LandingEn SuiteBedroom 2

Living Area

47.3747.97

42.78

39.48

43.52

H A W K H U R S T

8

B

B

+39.48

+39.93

+39.30

Patio

+40.19

1:200 @ A1 JUN 19MA/IK/MA

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

AND SITE SECTION003

0490_PL02

C


SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING




100mm80mm60mm40mm20mm0m 10mm

20m10m5m0mSCALE 1 : 200

SCALE 1 : 1

15m

SECTION B

SITE PLAN

Previously approved

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 14/06/2019 Updated treesB 14/06/2019 Updated dimensionsC 03/07/2019 Revised boundary line

42.78

47.37

39.93

74

45

NORTH EAST ELEVATION

NORTH WEST ELEVATION

SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m

10mm 20mm 40mm 60mm 80mm 100mm

1:100 @ A3 JUN 19ML/MA/IK

PROPOSED NORTH EAST

AND NORTH WEST

ELEVATIONS

0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 17/06/2019 Added brick arches

121

SOUTH WEST ELEVATION

SOUTH EAST ELEVATION

SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m



PROPOSED SOUTH EAST

AND SOUTH WEST

ELEVATIONS

0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 17/06/2019 Added brick arches

122

OGOGOG

SCALE 1 : 1SCALE 1 : 100 0m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION

1:100 @ A3 MAY 19ML/MA/IK/EA

PROPOSED ELEVATIONS(Existing Building)

0490_PL02

C

DESIGN COPYRIGHT IS THE PROPERTY OFUrban Matrix Ltd AND MUST NOT BE COPIEDWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT

7 HAWKHURST, COBHAM,SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 14/06/2019 Updated elevationsB 17/06/2019 Changed porch designC 30/10/2019 OG notes added at rear windows

120

OG Obscured Glazing

DD

E

E

Study

Living Area

EntranceHall

Kitchen

Boot/UtilityRoom

Dining Area

WC

4265 4820 4265 4905

18255

1510

9890

450

1510

1210

8165

600

11850

StoreStore

Living Area

OG

SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


GROUND FLOOR

OG Obscured Glazing


PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR

PLAN

0490_PL02

-





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

111

Bedroom 3

DD

E

E

Bedroom 2

Bedroom 4 Master Bedroom

Store

En Suite

Bathroom

1500mm

2100mm

18255

11

74

0

OGOG

OG

En Suite

Void

SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


FIRST FLOOR

OG Obscured Glazing


PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR

PLAN

0490_PL02

-





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

112

DD

E

E

1:100 @ A3 JUN 19ML/IK/MA

PROPOSED ROOF PLAN0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 28/06/2019 Omitted roof light

113SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


ROOF PLAN

store

WC

Dining Area

Kitchen

Living RoomD'D

En Suite

BathroomBedroom 2

Bedroom 1 Bedroom 3

D'D D'DUtilityRoom

OG OG OG

SCALE 1 : 1SCALE 1 : 100 0m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


GROUND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ROOF


PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS(Existing Building)

0490_PL02

A

DESIGN COPYRIGHT IS THE PROPERTY OFUrban Matrix Ltd AND MUST NOT BE COPIEDWITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT

7 HAWKHURST, COBHAM,SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

110

OG Obscured Glazing

14

00

14

00

1:200 @ A3 JUN 19MA/IK

APPROVED AND

PROPOSED SOUTH - EAST

STREET ELEVATION

0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

126

Proposed South East Street Elevation


20m10m5m0mSCALE 1 : 200

SCALE 1 : 1

15m

Approved South East Street Elevation

1:200 @ A3 JUN 19MA/IK

EXISTING AND PROPOSED

NORTH - EAST STREET

ELEVATION

0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 09/10/2017 Updated porch

125

Approved North East Street Elevation


20m10m5m0mSCALE 1 : 200

SCALE 1 : 1

15m

Proposed North East Street Elevation

Dining Area

StoreBathroom MasterBedroom

Living Area

LandingEn SuiteBedroom 2

Living Area

SECTION D

SECTION E

SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m



PROPOSED SECTIONS0490_PL02

A





SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 17/06/2019 Updated internal ceiling

130

43.52

39.93

1:100 @ A3 JUN 19IK

PROPOSED GARAGE

PLANS

0490_PL02

A




7 HAWKHURST, COBHAM

SURREY KT11 2QX

PLANNING

200SCALE 1 : 1

SCALE 1 : 1000m

0m

1m 2m 4m 6m 8m 10m


Front ElevationSide Elevation

Floor Plan

Rear Elevation

Side Elevation

Revision Notes:

Rev Date InfoA 17/06/2019 Amended levels

report to south area planning sub-committee list a...

Documents