A2 WA/2014/2387 Erection of 21 affordable dwellings following

demolition of existing buildings together with

associated works (as amended by plans

received 17/03/2015 and email received

31/03/2015) at 40 Weydon Lane And Staff Car

Park Opposite, Farnham GU9 8UP

Western Area

03/06/2015

G Bryant

Thames Valley Housing Association

18/12/2014

Committee:

Meeting Date:

Public Notice Was Public Notice required and posted: Yes

Grid Reference: E: 483219 N: 145649

Town : Farnham

Ward : Farnham Shortheath and Boundstone

Case Officer: Kathryn Pearson

8 Week Expiry Date 19/03/2015

Neighbour Notification Expiry Date 23/01/2015

Neighbour Notification

Amended/Additional Expiry Date

Time extension agreed

06/02/2015

05/06/2015

RECOMMENDATION That, subject to consideration of the views of the

Lead Local Flood Authority and South East

Water, and completion of a legal agreement to

secure affordable housing and contributions

towards the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

Avoidance Strategy, permission be REFUSED.

Introduction

The application has been brought before the Area Committee at the request of

the Local Member.

Location Plan

Site Description

The application site comprises two parts: the former Dairy Crest depot to the

south of Weydon Lane, and the adjacent staff car park site to the north. The

sites measure 0.33 hectares and 0.1 hectares respectively, giving a combined

site area of 0.43 hectares.

The larger site currently comprises a series of large single storey depot

buildings, sited to the north east and south west of the existing central access

road. To the south of the site, adjacent to the boundary, is a single storey flat

roof lean-to building.

The land on this part of the site rises significantly to the rear (south), and is

currently accessed via a ramp. The buildings on site are currently vacant, and

the site is enclosed by a variety of treatments including scrub vegetation,

fencing and the flank elevations of buildings. Vehicular access to the site is

provided centrally in its frontage onto Weydon Lane.

The former car park site opposite tapers to its western end, wherein it abuts a

storage yard. To the immediate north is the Farnham mainline railway line,

with large Network Rail sheds beyond. To the east are a pair of two storey

residential properties, which mark the start of the residential development

along the northern side of Weydon Lane. The site is flat, and is enclosed by

chain-link fencing. It contains no buildings, and vehicular access is provided to

the eastern end of the site.

Proposal

The proposal is for the erection of 12 dwellings on the depot site to the south

of Weydon Lane, together with a block of 9 flats on the car park site to the

north.

The mix of dwellings would be as set out below:

Type Number of units Floor space Tenure

1 bedroom

apartment

4 47 sqm Affordable Rent

2 bedroom

apartment

5 60 sqm Affordable Rent

2 bedroom house 4 77 sqm Shared

Ownership

4 bedroom house 8 103 sqm Shared

Ownership

Total 21 - -

i. Depot site

Plots A1, A2 and A3 would be sited to the west of the site, on the Weydon

Lane frontage, and would comprise a terrace of 1 x 2 bedroom house and 2 x

4 bedroom two-storey dwellings. This terrace would measure 17.9m in width

by 9.25m in depth, with an eaves height of 5.1m and a ridge height of 9.4m.

Plots A4, A5 and A6 would be sited to the east of the site, facing onto Weydon

Lane but set back by 13m into the site, with parking spaces in front. This

terrace would comprise 3 x 2 bedroom, two-storey dwellings. This terrace

would measure 15m in width by 9m in depth, with an eaves height of 5.1m

and a ridge height of 9.4m.

Plots A7, A8 and A9 would each comprise a 4 bedroom, two-storey detached

dwelling. Each property would measure 9.3m in width by 6.7m in depth, with

an eaves height of 5.1m and a ridge height of 8.3m.

Plots A10, A11 and A12 would be sited to the west of the access road and

would comprise a terrace of 3 x 4 bedroom, two-storey dwellings. This terrace

would measure 27.2m in width by 6.6m in depth, with an eaves height of 5.2m

and a ridge height of 8.7m. The terrace would be staggered to take account of

the fall in levels to the north, towards Weydon Lane. It would feature a front

central gable, spanning Plots A11 and A12.

A total of 28 parking spaces would be provided to serve the 12 dwellings,

including 4 x disabled bays. Each property would have an enclosed garden

space, together with provision for bin storage and a shed/cycle store. The

properties would feature a mix of materials including brickwork, render, clay

tiles and slate.

ii. Car park site

Plots B1 – B9 would comprise 4 x 1-bedroom and 5 x 2-bedroom apartments

set over three floors, with 4 x apartments on each of the ground and first

floors, and a further flat in the second floor roof space.

The building would have a maximum width across its frontage of 22m, with a

depth of 13.7m. It would have an eaves height of 5.25m, and a maximum

height of 9.65m. Flat roof dormer windows are proposed to the southern,

western and northern roof elevations.

A total of 14 parking spaces would be provided to serve the apartments,

including 2 x disabled bays. Communal bin storage would be provided to the

west of the car park, and secure cycle parking would be provided to the north

east, accessed via a new pedestrian access to the east.

Proposed site layout

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans – Plots A1 – A3

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans – Plots A4 – A6

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans – Plot A7

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans – Plots A8 and A9

Proposed Elevations – Plots A10 – A12

Proposed Elevations – Plots B1 – B9

Relevant Planning History

WA/1986/0796 Erection of shelter for garaging and

overnight charging of electric milk

floats

Full Permission

02/09/1986

FAR421B/62 New bulk milk storage bay Full Permission

17/12/1962

FAR536/57 Store Full Permission

13/12/1957

FAR71/55 Six garages, water filter tower, petrol

pump and tank

Full Permission

24/03/1955

FAR250/50 Creamery and garage Full permission

29/11/1950

FAR137/50 Creamery and garage Full Permission

17/08/1950

FAR12/50 Use of site for dairy shop and

garages

Temporary

Permission

23/03/1950

Planning Policy Constraints

Within Developed Area of Farnham

Thames Basin Heath 5km Buffer Zone

Wealden Heaths I SPA 5km Buffer Zone

Gas Pipe Line

Farnham Cycle Network

Potentially contaminated land

Development Plan Policies and Proposals

Saved Policies D1, D4, D5, D6, D8, D9, H4, H5, H10, IC2, IC3, M2 and M14

of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009.

The South East Plan 2009 was the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the

South East region, the Plan was revoked on March 2013 except for Policy

NRM6: Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. This Policy remains in

force.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires all

applications for planning permission to be determined in accordance with the

Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The

adopted Local Plan (2002) and the South East Plan 2009 (solely in relation to

policy NRM6) therefore remain the starting point for the assessment of this

proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration in

the determination of this case. Paragraph 215 states that where a local

authority does not have a development plan adopted since 2004, due weight

may only be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their

degree of consistency with the NPPF. In this instance, the relevant Local Plan

policies possess a good degree of conformity with the requirements of the

NPPF. As such, considerable weight may still be given to the requirements of

the Local Plan.

The Council is in the process of replacing the 2002 Local Plan with a new two

part document. Part 1 (Strategic Policies and Sites) will replace the Core

Strategy that was withdrawn in October 2013. Part 2 (Development

Management and Site Allocations) will follow the adoption of Part 1. The new

Local Plan will build upon the foundations of the Core Strategy, particularly in

those areas where the policy/ approach is not likely to change significantly.

Public consultation on potential housing scenarios and other issues took place

in September/October 2014. The timetable for the preparation of the Local

Plan (Part 1) is currently under review.

Other guidance:

• National Planning Policy Framework (2012 )

• National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

• Planning Infrastructure Contributions SPD (2008)

• Parking Guidelines (2013)

• Residential Extensions SPD (2010)

• Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (Surrey County Council 2012)

• Surrey Design Guide (2002)

• Farnham Design Statement 2010

Consultations and Town/Parish Council Comments

County Highway Authority Response dated 22/01/2015

The proposal appears to affect a road for which

Surrey County Council is the Highway Authority.

It may be possible to recommend suitable

conditions that would safeguard the

transportation issues, if the application were to

be amended to address the following:

1. The proposed plans do not demonstrate that

a refuse vehicle will be able to turn within the

site on the south side of Weydon Lane.

Revised plans should include a swept-path

analysis showing the ability of a refuse

vehicle to manoeuver safely within the site. It

should be noted that there is no requirement

for refuse vehicles to enter the site on the

north side of Weydon Lane.

2. The proposed plans show the diversion of the

public footway within the site. The Highway

Authority would not adopt this new footpath

and instead a standard dropped crossing with

tactile paving should be provided at the site

access.

Response dated 14/01/2015 (amended plans)

No objection subject to conditions.

Farnham Town Council No comments received.

Environment Agency Refer to Standing Advice

Council’s Environmental

Health Officer

(Contaminated Land)

A review of the site investigation report has

identified a number of potential risks with respect

to ground contamination of the site arising from

the historical land use and extant structures.

To ensure that risks from contamination are

managed appropriately, conditions are

recommended.

Council’s Environmental

Health Officer (Air Quality)

There are some concerns relating to potential

emissions during any deconstruction and

construction phases of the project, affecting

existing receptors in the area through potential

fugitive dust emissions and by increased traffic

to the site during development. It should also be

noted that the introduction of residential

properties may expose the future occupants to

air pollution associated with road traffic and is

likely to increase road usage in the area by the

occupants.

Conditions recommended.

Council’s Environmental

Health Officer (Noise and

Nuisance)

It has been determined that noise from

construction crosses the lowest observed

adverse effect level boundary, above which the

noise starts to cause small changes in behaviour

and attitude. The noise therefore starts to have

an adverse effect and consideration needs to be

given to mitigating and minimising those effects.

Conditions recommended.

Surrey Wildlife Trust The Trust advises that Landscape Design

Architecture’s Phase I Habitat and Protected

Species Survey Report dated December 2014

appears to provide sufficient information for the

Local Authority to be able to determine the likely

effect of the development on protected and

important species using the site. The applicant

should therefore be required to undertake the

Mitigation and Enhancement actions as detailed

in Section 8 of the Ecological Report.

Though the proposed development site has low

bat roosting potential, bats may forage or

commute through the site or along the railway

line to the rear of the car park. Therefore

recommends that any lighting required as part of

the proposed development is low level or

directed downward to avoid interfering with any

bats that may be passing through the site.

Council’s Housing

Enabling Officer

A mixed tenure scheme is better than a 100%

shared ownership scheme, as it helps to meet

the need for rented affordable housing in the

Draft 2014 SHMA. Providing a significant

proportion of shared ownership at 60% still

addresses the concerns raised about the need to

create a balanced community (as the two social

housing schemes nearby are all for rent).

Overall, happy with the proposal but the 4-bed

shared ownership homes would need to be

affordable for households on the Help To Buy

Register who all earn under £60,000 (all costs

inc mortgage payments, rent and service

charges) and this needs to be tied down in the

S106.

Lead Local Flood Authority

(Surrey County Council)

Not yet received – to be reported orally

South East Water Not yet received – to be reported orally

Representations

In accordance with the statutory requirements and the “Reaching Out to the

Community – Local Development Framework – Statement of Community

Involvement – August 2014” the application was advertised in the newspaper

on 02/01/2015 site notices were displayed around the site 02/01/2015 and

neighbour notification letters were sent on 23/12/2014.

11 letters have been received raising objection on the following grounds:

• Amendments to scheme does not address overlooking as obscure

glazing could be removed – not appropriate other than in a bathroom;

• More obvious solution would be to require re-design of these units to

single storey dwellings or leave them out altogether;

• Amendments fail to address other objections regarding boundary

height, ownership of boundaries, tree height and lighting;

• Height and position of Plots A8 and A9 wholly inappropriate in context

– will overshadow properties and stand out in landscape;

• Proposals will block out views and contest the findings that proposal

will not result in loss of daylight;

• No visit to make such assessment and does not take account of

existing and long established amenity;

• Proposal to plant Rowan trees along boundary to screen development

will affect growth of hedges, will suck water from ground and cause leaf

litter in the autumn;

• Proposal would include street lighting to rear of properties in Green

Lane – this will add substantially to light pollution for the benefit of two

properties and the annoyance of many others;

• Consider 21 dwellings too much for the site;

• Concern regarding loss of wall adjacent to No.5 Chestnut Avenue –

wall provides considerable enhancement of gardens and privacy and

security – overlooking into rear gardens from Plots A10-A12;

• Application is not accurate – does not mention that No.9 Chestnut

Avenue has been replaced by 2 dwellings;

• Application does not include photographs from neighbouring properties

and access to these properties was not obtained in the course of

application’s preparation;

• Proposal falls foul of Policy H4 regarding number of 2 and 3 bedroom

properties proposed;

• Proposal should include single storey properties at the rear of the site.

Submissions in support

The applicant has made the following submissions in support of the

application:

• The redevelopment of the Dairy Crest site will contribute towards a

housing shortfall in Waverley;

• Of the required 350 affordable homes required per year, 119 are

estimated to be required in Farnham;

• 1 and 2 bedroom flats for affordable rent will contribute towards

meeting the high level of need for smaller households indicated by the

Housing Register;

• Larger shared ownership properties would be suitable for families

currently on the Help To Buy Register;

• Council would have full nomination rights to all of the new dwellings

proposed;

• The site has been actively marketed since February 2014 and

continues to be so, having been marketed for all enquiries since May

2014;

• All of the 90 enquiries received have been for residential purposes and

no interest has been show for retaining the site for commercial

purposes;

• Waverley Employment Land Review 2009 acknowledges that should

this site become vacant, it would be suitable for alternative uses,

particularly residential, and site would not be suitable for industrial uses

as it is surrounded by residential development. Existing buildings would

likely need to be demolished to make way for fit-for-purpose modern

buildings and the scale of investment required would unlikely make this

a viable option given the size of the site and the fact it is bisected by

Weydon Lane;

• Review of site by local agents concluded that site not suitable or viable

for commercial re-use and only viable use would be as residential;

• Proposal would contribute towards maintenance and improvement of

Farnham Park SANG;

• Site is located in a sustainable location well served by public transport

and in close proximity to local facilities and services;

• Layout has been designed to place pedestrians and cyclists at the top

of the hierarchy for movements;

• 42 parking spaces would be provided, of which six would be for

disabled users and this would accord with parking standards adopted in

October 2013;

• Both sites provide an active frontage and building positioned to reflect

existing building line of adjoining properties;

• Proposal would accord with Local Plan Policy H4 in terms of mix and

size of dwellings, and would have a density of around 49 dwellings per

hectare;

• Private, communal space is provided for residents in apartments and

there is a good network of public open space and play facilities in close

proximity to the site which includes the Baldreys Recreation Ground,

just over 100m away;

• Drainage discharges off-site will be reduced by 90% and any

contaminated materials will be remediated.

Determining Issues

Principle of development

Housing land supply

Loss of commercial/employment land

Affordable housing

Housing mix and density

Visual impact, layout and design

Impact on residential amenity

Amenity space and living conditions

Highways, access and parking

Drainage

Effect upon SPA

Infrastructure

Crime and disorder

Financial considerations

Climate change and sustainability

Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010

Water Frameworks Regulations 2011

Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010 Implications

Human Rights Implications

Environmental Impact Regulations 2011

Third party comments

Working in a positive/proactive manner

Planning Considerations

Principle of development

The site is located within the Developed Area of Farnham wherein the

principle of development is acceptable subject to visual and residential

amenity considerations.

Housing land supply

The provision of new market and affordable housing will assist in addressing

the Council’s housing land supply requirements. Following the withdrawal of

the Core Strategy from examination in October 2013, the Council agreed an

interim housing target of 250 dwellings a year for the purposes of establishing

five year housing supply in December 2013. That was the target in the

revoked South East Plan and is the most recent housing target for Waverley

that has been tested and adopted. However, as a result of court judgements,

it is accepted that the Council should not use the South East Plan figure as its

starting point for its five year housing supply and that the Council does not

currently have an up-to-date housing supply policy from which to derive a five

year housing land requirement.

It is acknowledged that both the latest household projections published by the

Department for Communities and Local Government and the evidence in the

emerging draft Strategic Housing Market Assessment point to a higher level of

housing need in Waverley than that outlined within the South East Plan.

Specifically, the Draft West Surrey SHMA December 2014 indicates an

unvarnished figure of at least 512 dwellings per annum.

Notwithstanding that this is a higher figure than the South East Plan Figure,

latest estimates suggest a housing land supply of 3.7 years based on the

unvarnished housing supply figure of 512 dwellings per annum. This falls

short of the 5 year housing land supply as required by the NPPF. This is a

material consideration to be weighed against the other considerations for this

application.

Loss of commercial/employment land

The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to

the achievement of sustainable development. There are three dimensions to

sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These

dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number

of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and

competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is

available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and

innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development

requirements, including the provision of infrastructure;

• a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by

providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present

and future generations; and by creating a high quality built

environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s

needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and

• an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our

natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to

improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste

and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including

moving to a low carbon economy.

The NPPF sets out that planning policies should avoid the long term

protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable

prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be

regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being

used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of

land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market

signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable

local communities.

Policy IC2 of the Local Plan states “The loss of suitably located industrial and

commercial land will be resisted. Sites will be regarded as being suitably

located where they meet one or more of the following criteria:-

(a) the continued use of the site for commercial or industrial purposes would

not have a materially adverse impact on the local environment or the

amenities of nearby residents;

(b) they lie within or close to residential areas which can provide a source of

labour;

(c) they are conveniently located to customers/markets and to other firms;

(d) they are located where the highway network can satisfactorily absorb the

traffic generated; and

(e) they are conveniently served by public transport and/or are conveniently

accessible from nearby residential areas by walking/bicycle.

The site currently benefits from a sui generis, mixed B1, B2 and B8 use,

having formerly been used as a dairy firm’s distribution depot. The site

therefore has an established commercial use and it must therefore be

considered whether it could be put to other commercial or employment uses.

Officers consider that the site would meet the criteria of being ‘suitably

located’, given that it is close to a source of labour.

However, it is acknowledged that the site is in a predominately residential

area, and that other commercial uses of the site have the potential to

materially adversely impact the local environment and the amenities of nearby

residents.

The applicant has provided details of the marketing undertaken for the site.

The site has been marketed since February 2014 and continues to be

marketed at present. The initial marketing from February to May 2014 was as

a residential opportunity, but since that time the site has been marketed for all

enquiries.

A total of 90 enquiries were made about the site from interested parties;

however, all the enquiries received were for residential purposes, with a total

of 8 bids for this use submitted for the site. The applicant confirms that there

has been no interest in the site for commercial purposes.

In order to assess the site's viability and suitability for other commercial uses,

the applicant has commissioned a local agent, Matthews and Goodman, to

review the site. The conclusion of that review was that the replacement

buildings for B2/B8 uses would likely need to have eaves heights twice of that

of the existing buildings. The width of the existing roadway and lack of turning

space within the southern site would cause traffic manoeuvrability problems

for commercial vehicles, and there would be limited parking available. The

existing purpose built buildings would not offer a flexible enough space for

other users to make their re-use viable, and the existing buildings are poorly

constructed and insulated.

Officers consider that opportunities to reuse the site would be limited owing to

the size and layout of the existing site, and its location adjacent to residential

properties. This was recognised in the 2009 Employment Land Review (ELR),

which stated that the site would be suitable for continuation of the current

dairy use, but that should the current occupier vacate in the future, the site

would be suitable for alternative uses, particularly residential. The ELR also

notes that the site has poor public transport accessibility, with no local

services nearby to support commercial/industrial uses.

The 2014 ELR Update notes that whilst it is forecast that jobs in B1a (office)

uses are likely to increase, jobs in B1c and B2 (general industrial) uses are

forecast to decline. The Borough currently has a significant amount of vacant

employment floor space, totalling approximately 28,200 sqm, or 11% of the

total floor space available. This level of vacancy exceeds the normal level of

vacancy usually required in any market to allow for movement of businesses

to meet their needs.

The conclusions of the 2014 ELR Update are that good quality existing sites

should be safeguarded and opportunities should be explored for intensifying

economic activity on employment sites where appropriate. However, the ELR

also notes that sites which are not fit for purpose and unlikely to meet future

business needs should be considered for release, in particular for residential

redevelopment to help meet the Borough’s housing needs.

The existing site is considered to have limited potential, in its current state, to

provide accommodation for other industrial/commercial uses and would

require significant investment to bring it up to current standards. In addition,

the location of the site within a residential area, surrounded by existing

development, strictly limits the uses which might be appropriate on the site.

The redevelopment of the site provides an opportunity to significantly boost

housing in the Borough, and would deliver a wholly affordable scheme.

Therefore, weighing into the balance the benefits delivered by the proposed

scheme, it is considered that, in this instance, the loss of the existing

employment/commercial site is outweighed by the benefits which would be

delivered by the proposed scheme.

Affordable housing

The NPPF outlines that to deliver a wide choice of quality homes, local

planning authorities should identify where affordable housing is needed and

identify policies for meeting this on site, unless off-site provision or a financial

contribution can be robustly justified. Policy H5 sets out the local

requirements for affordable housing within settlements and states that in

settlements of more than 3,000 in population, the Council will seek affordable

housing on new developments comprising 15 or more new dwellings. Where

proposals provide a housing density of more than 40 dwellings per hectare

(which includes the current proposal) the Council will seek to negotiate that at

least 25% of the number of net new dwellings are in the form of subsidised

affordable housing. Policy H5 states that the scale of provision on individual

sites will depend on the characteristics of the site, market conditions and other

considerations.

There is a considerable need for affordable housing across the Borough and

securing more affordable homes is a key corporate priority within the

Waverley Borough Corporate Plan 2012 – 2015. As a strategic housing

authority, the Council has a role in promoting the development of additional

affordable homes to meet local housing need. Planning mechanisms are an

essential part of the Council’s strategy of meeting local housing needs.

The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) estimates that there is a

need for 515 additional affordable homes to be provided each year over a

period of 5 years. It estimates a need for 70% of new affordable homes to be

smaller 1 and 2 bedroom properties.

The site would provide 100% affordable housing, with the 1 and 2-bedroom

flats offered for affordable rent, and the proposed 2 and 4-bedroom dwellings

for shared ownership. The Council’s Housing Enabling Officer has been

consulted on the proposals and has commented that there are currently 1,657

households on the Council’s Housing Register who are unable to access

housing to meet their needs in the market. In addition, there are a further 226

households registered with the Council for shared ownership housing.

Demand for both these types of tenures outstrips supply as the number of

vacancies which arise is minimal.

The Council’s Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer is satisfied that the

proposal would provide an appropriate mix of tenures that would help to

create a balanced community, but has commented that the 4-bedroom shared

ownership homes would need to be affordable for households on the Help to

Buy Register who all earn £60,000 or less.

This requirement, along with confirmation that the housing would remain

affordable housing in perpetuity, would be captured as part of a legal

agreement. However, at the time of writing the report a draft agreement has

not been completed. On that basis, the proposal would fail to secure

affordable housing and would conflict with Policy H5 of the Local Plan 2002.

Housing mix and density

The NPPF states that in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes,

widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and

mixed communities, local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing

based on current and future demographic trends; identify the size, type,

tenure and range of housing that are required in particular locations, reflecting

local demand; and where it is identified that affordable housing is needed, set

policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial

contribution can be robustly justified.

Policy H4 of the Local Plan 2002, in respect of housing mix, is considered to

be broadly consistent with the approach in the NPPF. It states that

requirements for mix are as follows:

a) at least 50% of all the dwelling units within the proposal shall be 2

bedroomed or less; and,

b) not less than 80% of all the dwelling units within the proposal shall be 3

bedroomed or less; and,

c) no more than 20% of all the dwelling units in any proposal shall exceed

165 square metres in total gross floor area measured externally,

excluding garaging.

The Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) provides

an updated likely profile of household types within Waverley. The evidence in

the SHMA is more up to date than the Local Plan, however, the profile of

households requiring market housing demonstrated in the SHMA at Borough

level is broadly in line with the specific requirements of Policy H4.

The density element of Policy H4 is out of date with policy in the NPPF which

states that to boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning

authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local

circumstances.

61% of the proposed dwellings would have 2 bedrooms or less and would

accord with criterion a). 61% of the dwellings would also have 3 bedrooms or

less. Whilst this would not strictly accord with criterion b), the proposal is for

affordable housing and the mix proposed would meet a specific demand and

need in this area. Criterion c) would be met by the proposal as none of the

units would exceed 165 sqm in area.

It is noted that along the northern side of Weydon Lane, there are other flatted

schemes which provide a similar density to that proposed for the apartment

block proposed. On the southern side, the density of surrounding

development is generally lower than that proposed for the application site.

However, it is recognised that the site provides an opportunity to provide

affordable housing on previously development land in a sustainable location,

and in this instance, it is considered that the higher density of development is

acceptable.

Visual impact, layout and design

The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as

a key part of sustainable development. Although planning policies and

decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes,

they should seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. Policies D1

and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 accord with the NPPF in requiring development

to have high quality design and to be well related in size, scale and character

to its surroundings.

The Farnham Design Statement 2010 sets out that development in

Shortheath and Boundstone should respect and enhance the sylvan nature of

the area. New development should respect the pattern of existing

development, in terms of scale and materials.

The proposed layout on the southern part of the site would comprise two block

of three terraced properties, with the block to the west set forward within the

site, and the block to the east set back with a parking area in front, to be in

line with the dwelling at No.38. There would also be a terrace of three

dwellings along the west of the access road, with gardens to the west abutting

the gardens of those dwellings in Chestnut Avenue. A further detached

dwelling would be located to the south eastern corner, separated from the

front block of dwellings by parking spaces and with a garden to the east. The

final two detached dwellings would front onto the access road to the east, with

gardens to the west.

The apartment block on the northern site would be set back from the road,

and sited to the north east of the site. Parking would be provided to the west,

along the perimeters of the site.

The Council’s Urban Design Officer has been consulted on the proposals and

has commented that the design approach adopted, including the variety of

materials proposed and the variation in design and rooflines would be

acceptable. Such details add variation to the appearance of the dwellings and

help to break up the bulk of the elevations.

The proposed flat block on the northern side of Weydon Lane would be deep,

and as a result, a crown-flat roof is proposed to ensure that the height of the

building remains acceptable in relation to the height of other buildings nearby.

The area of flat roof would be perceptible at street level, owing to the visibility

of the site from Weydon Lane. However, it is considered that the use of ridge

tiles and detailing could help to disguise the area of flat roof and minimise its

visual impact, and this could be controlled through conditions, if permission is

granted.

On balance, it is considered that the design and appearance of the dwellings

would not be so harmful to the character of the area as to warrant a reason for

refusal of the scheme. The materials to be used could be secured by

conditioned if permission is granted, to ensure that an acceptable and varied

palette is used, in order to add interest to the appearance of the scheme and

reinforce the local vernacular.

Impact on residential amenity

The NPPF identifies that within the overarching roles that the planning system

ought to play, a set of core land use planning principles should underpin both

plan-making and decision making. These 12 principles include that planning

should seek to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future

occupants of land and buildings. These principles are supported by Policies

D1 and D4 of the Local Plan and guidance contained within the Council’s SPD

for Residential Extensions.

The nearest residential property to the proposed flatted development on the

northern part of the site would be No.91 Weydon Lane, which is a semi-

detached two storey dwelling. The proposed flats would not have any side

facing windows facing No.91, and subject to conditions to preclude any further

openings being formed, no objection is raised with regard to residential

amenity in respect of this element of the scheme.

On the south side of Weydon Lane, the nearest residential properties which

have the potential to be affected by the proposal are those in Green Lane to

the east (No’s 67-63); No.38 Weydon Lane, to the immediate north east; No’s

1 – 11 Chestnut Avenue, to the west, and No.1 Middlefield Close, to the

south.

Objections have been received from the occupiers of properties in Chestnut

Avenue and Green Lane, raising serious concerns regarding privacy,

overbearing impact and loss of light. Officers have conducted thorough site

visits to these properties in order to assess the likely impact of the scheme on

the amenity of residents.

The properties in Chestnut Avenue are generally set on a level plane to one

another, and No’s 1, 3, 5 and 7 are set level with the land at the front of the

application site. These properties have approximate garden depths of 15m.

These properties are bordered by an existing 7.7m high brick wall of the

former dairy building.

It is acknowledged that the removal of this boundary wall could result in some

loss of privacy to the properties in Chestnut Avenue. However, replacement

boundary screening would be provided in the form of 1.8m fencing, which

would prevent direct intervisibility to the ground floor and garden areas of

these properties. The proposed dwellings would be sited approximately

10.5m from the boundary with those properties in Chestnut Avenue.

The SPD for Residential Extensions advises that a separation distance of 18m

should be retained between windows and private amenity spaces, and a

distance of 21m window to window, to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy.

It is acknowledged that there would be some intervisibility to the rear most

parts of the gardens in Chestnut Avenue; however, this would be confined to

the rear most parts only, and that the majority of the gardens would be sited

far enough away so as not to be materially overlooked by the dwellings. The

dwellings would be on a level plane with those in Chestnut Avenue at this

point, and officers consider that the resultant relationship would be

commensurate with a normal, back-to-back relationship between two

dwellings.

Plot A7 would also be on a level plane with No.38 Weydon Lane. This

dwelling would be sited at a 90-degree angle to No.38; however, and direct

overlooking would be confined to the rearmost parts of the garden of that

property only, and views to the main, private amenity

However, the application site rises steeply at the rearmost section, where

Plots A8 and A9 are proposed. These properties would be sited adjacent to

the two new properties recently built at No.9 Chestnut Avenue. Given the

elevated position of Plots A8 and A9 in relation to these two properties, it is

considered that the perception of overlooking, together with the extent to

which the proposed dwellings would be visible, would significantly impose

upon the amenities and privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of these

properties.

To the north east of the application site lie the properties in Green Lane. The

nearest affected properties would be No’s 67, 65 and 63. These properties are

set on a relatively level plane with Plots A9 and A8. The occupiers of these

properties have raised objection to the scheme regarding the scale and height

of the proposed buildings; the impact of mature landscaping and potential loss

of light; overlooking and light pollution.

Officers have visited the properties in Green Lane to assess the likely impact.

It is acknowledged that there would be a window to window separation

distance of 32m between the rear elevation of the properties in Green Lane,

and the front facing windows in Plots A8 and A9. However, the majority of this

separation distance is provided by the private, rear gardens at the properties

in Green Lane, with the proposed dwellings on Plots A8 and A9 providing a

minimum of 9m from their front elevations to the boundaries of the gardens of

these properties.

This would not be a normal ‘back to back’ relationship; rather, the front,

principal elevations of the proposed dwellings would be directly facing, and

overlooking, the private, rear amenity spaces of the properties in Green Lane.

Officers consider that this would be an unacceptable relationship which would

significantly and demonstrably reduce the privacy and general amenities of

the occupiers of the properties in Green Lane, through both actual and

perceived overlooking.

Officers also note the concerns raised regarding potential loss of light, caused

by both the height of the proposed dwellings and impact of mature

landscaping, upon which the applicant is relying to screen the development.

Landscaping cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to ensure the privacy of

residents, and officers share the concerns of residents that the height of the

landscaping required would likely significantly diminish the current levels of

amenity enjoyed by the residents of Green Lane.

Officers have sought to negotiate with the applicant during the course of the

application, in order to try and address these concerns. However, no

satisfactory solution has been forthcoming from the applicant, and officers

consider that the amenity issues identified are symptomatic of an over-

development of the site.

Officers therefore share the concerns raised by residents and consider that

the proposal would fail to maintain existing levels of privacy and amenity to

the properties in Chestnut Avenue and Green Lane, in conflict with the

guidance of the SPD for Residential Extensions, Policies D1 and D4 of the

Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF 2012. This matter is, in the view of officers, of

significant weight in the planning balance.

Amenity space and living conditions

On promoting healthy communities, the NPPF sets out that planning policies

and decisions should aim to achieve places which promote safe and

accessible developments, with high quality public space which encourage the

active and continual use of public areas. These should include high quality

open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation which can make an

important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Policy H10

of the Local Plan addresses amenity and play space in housing

developments. Although there are no set standards for garden sizes, the

policy requires that a usable ‘outdoor area’ should be provided in association

with residential development and that ‘appropriate provision for children’s play’

is required.

The proposed dwellings on the southern part of the site would all be suitable

for family occupation. Each dwelling would be served by a residential garden

which officers consider would be of a size suitable for family living and

children’s play.

The proposed flats on the northern part of the site would be provided with

communal garden space to the north of the block. Officers acknowledge that

the height of the building would result in a significant degree of shading to this

area during the daytime; however, it is considered that it would provide a

reasonable amount of outdoor space for informal recreation and play by

residents and children. In addition, officers note that there is a playing field,

sports courts and equipped play area approximately 100m from the

application site, which would also provide outdoor play and recreation

opportunities.

On that basis, it is considered that the development would be served by

sufficient outdoor amenity and play space such that the development would

accord with Local Plan Policy H10.

The proposals would, however, not meet the minimum gross internal floor

areas set out in the Government’s Technical Housing Standards – Nationally

Described Space Standard (2015), as set out in the table below:

Plot No’s Description Minimum Space

Standard (GIA)

Proposed floor

space (GIA)

A1 and A2 2 storey, 4

bedroom, 6

person dwelling

106 sqm 104 sqm

A3 2 storey, 2

bedroom, four

79 sqm 77 sqm

person dwelling

A4 – A6 2 storey, 2

bedroom, four

person dwelling

79 sqm 77 sqm

A7 – A9 2 storey, 4

bedroom, six

person dwelling

106 sqm 104 sqm

A10 – A12 2 storey, 4

bedroom, 6

person dwelling

106 sqm 110 sqm

B1 and B2, B5

and B6

Single storey, 2

bedroom, three

person flat

61 sqm 60 sqm

B3 and B4, B7

and B8

Single storey, 1

bedroom, two

person flat

50 sqm 47.5 sqm

B9 Single storey, 2

bedroom, four

person flat

70 sqm 71 sqm

Whilst the size of the units proposed do not meet the prescribed minimum

Space Standards, only limited weight can be attached to the Standards as

they do not form part of the Development Plan. Nonetheless, the Space

Standards are a material consideration, and the small size of the units

proposed does add further weight to the conclusion of the officers that the

scheme represents an over-development of the site.

Highways, access and parking

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 outlines that transport policies

have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also

in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. In considering

developments that generate significant amounts of movements local

authorities should seek to ensure they are located where the need to travel

will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be

maximised. Plans and decisions should take account of whether

improvements can be taken within the transport network that cost-effectively

limit the significant impact of the development.

Paragraph 32 states: “All developments that generate significant amounts of

movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport

Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

• the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up

depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for

major transport infrastructure;

• safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

• improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost

effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.

Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where

the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.

The proposed development to the south of Weydon Lane will re-use the

existing vehicular access to the site. The access to the northern part of the

development would be moved from its current position to the east of the site,

and would be re-located further to the west.

The County Highway Authority has undertaken an assessment in terms of the

likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking

provision and is satisfied that the application would not have a material impact

on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway, subject to

conditions.

The NPPF supports the adoption of local parking standards for both

residential and non-residential development. The Council has adopted a

Parking Guidelines Document which was prepared after the Surrey County

Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance in January

2012. Development proposals should comply with the appropriate guidance

as set out within these documents.

The Council’s Parking Guidelines 2013 indicate that 4-bedroom dwellings in

this location should be provided with 2.5 parking spaces each, and that 2-

bedroom dwellings should be provided with 2 parking spaces each. This

would indicate a requirement across the southern part of the site for 28

parking spaces. The proposal would meet this requirement, including

provision for 4 disabled parking bays. Whilst some of the parking spaces

would be tandem spaces, it is considered that the level of parking proposed

across this side of the site would be sufficient so as to meet the guidelines.

On the northern part of the site, the 4 x 1-bedroom flats and 5 x 2-bedroom

flats would generate a requirement for 14 parking spaces. This requirement

would be met by the proposals.

On that basis, no objection is raised in respect of highway safety and capacity

or on parking grounds and would accord with Local Plan Policies M2 and

M14.

Drainage

Decisions on planning applications relating to major developments should

ensure that SuDS for the management of run-off are put in place, unless

demonstrated to be inappropriate. Under these arrangements, local planning

authorities should consult the relevant Lead Local Floor Authority (LLFA) on

the management of surface water; satisfy themselves that the proposed

minimum standards of operation are appropriate and ensure through the use

of planning conditions or planning obligations that there are clear

arrangements in place for ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the

development. The SuDS should be designed to ensure that the maintenance

and operation requirements are economically proportionate. From the 15th

April 2015, the LLFA in respect of surface water drainage and SuDS will be

Surrey County Council.

The NPPG states that whether SuDS should be considered will depend on the

proposed development and its location, for example where there are concerns

about flooding. SuDS may not be practicable for some forms of development.

New development should only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of

flooding if priority has been given to the use of SuDS. When considering major

development, SuDS should be provided unless demonstrated to be

inappropriate. Whether a SuDS system is appropriate to a particular

development proposal is a matter of judgement for the Local Planning

Authority and advice should be sought from relevant flood risk management

bodies, principally the LLFA.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has

published non-technical standards for SuDS (March 2015) which will be taken

into account by the LLFA and local planning authorities in assessing the

acceptability of SuDS schemes.

The applicant has provided details of the proposed drainage strategy for the

site. At the time of writing the report, the comments of the LLFA are awaited

and an oral report will be made in this respect to the meeting. However, given

that the site is already developed and surface water drainage systems are

already in place, it is considered that there is unlikely to be an overriding

objection to the scheme on drainage grounds.

Effect upon SPA

The site is located within the 5km of the Thames Basin Heathland Special

Protection Area (SPA). The proposal comprises the creation of 21 dwellings

and would result in an increase in people (permanently) on the site.

The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S106 agreements to

be:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

In order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S106

agreement is required as part of any subsequent planning approval to secure

a financial contribution (£61,688.95, including monitoring fee) towards a

SANG, in line with the Waverley Borough Council Thames Basin Heaths

Special Protection Area (TBH SPA) Avoidance Strategy (December 2009).

This figure is based on the proposal being for 8 x 4-bedroom dwellings, 9 x 2-

bedroom dwellings and 4 x 1-bedroom dwellings. This Strategy was formally

adopted by the Council on 13th December 2009.

At the time of writing the report, a signed unilateral undertaking has not been

received to secure such contributions. On that basis, the proposal would fail to

avoid a likely significant effect on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA and would

not comply with Policy D5 of the Local Plan 2002 or the NPPF 2012.

Infrastructure

Policy D13 of the Local Plan states that “development will only be permitted

where adequate infrastructure, services and facilities are available, or where

the developer has made suitable arrangements for the provision of the

infrastructure, services and facilities directly made necessary by the proposed

development. The Council will have regard to the cumulative impact of

development, and developers may be required to contribute jointly to

necessary infrastructure improvements”. Local Plan Policy D14 goes on to set

out the principles behind the negotiation of planning obligations required in

connection with particular forms of new development. The current tests for

legal agreements are set out in Regulation 122 (2) of the CIL Regulations

2010 and the guidance within the NPPF.

From 6th April 2015, CIL Regulation 123 has been amended to mean that the

use of pooled contributions under Section 106 of the Town Country Planning

Act will be restricted. At that point, no more may be collected in respect of a

specific infrastructure project or a type of infrastructure through a Section 106

agreement, if five or more obligations for that project or type of infrastructure

have already been entered into since 6th April 2010 and it is a type of

infrastructure that is capable of being funded by CIL.

The scheme is for 100% affordable housing. On that basis, and in accordance

with the Infrastructure Contributions SPD 2008, no infrastructure charge is

levied for the scheme.

Crime and disorder

S17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty to consider crime

and disorder implications on local authorities. In exercising its various

functions, each authority should have due regard to the likely effect of those

functions on, and the need to do all that it can to prevent, crime and disorder

in its area. This requirement is reflected in the National Planning Policy

Framework, which states that planning policies and decisions should promote

safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of

crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.

Given the scale and nature of the proposal, together with its location within a

private curtilage, it is considered that the proposed redevelopment of the site

would reduce opportunities for crime and disorder arising from the current

vacant status of the site, and would not lead to crime and disorder in the local

community and would accord with the requirements of the NPPF.

Financial Considerations

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

Committee/decision maker.

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 (NHB) is capable of being a material

consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the

application would mean that the NHB would be payable for the net increase in

dwellings from this development. The Head of Finance has calculated the

indicative figure of £1,450 per net additional dwelling (total of £ 30,450) per

annum for six years. A supplement of £350 over a 6 year period is payable for

each of the affordable homes provided for in the proposal (total of £44,100).

Climate change and sustainability

The Local Plan does not require this type of development to achieve a

particular rating of the Code for Sustainable Homes or include renewable

energy technologies. The lack of any policy backing in this regard, however,

prevents conditions being added to require this.

Biodiversity and compliance with Habitat Regulations 2010

The NPPF states that the Planning System should contribute to and enhance

the natural and local environment by minimising impacts upon biodiversity and

providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the

Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including

by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current

and future pressures.

When determining planning application, local planning authorities should aim

to conserve and enhance biodiversity by applying the following principles:

If significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through

locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately

mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for then planning permission

should be refused.

In addition, Circular 06/2005 states ‘It is essential that the presence or

otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the

proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted.’

The National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 states that the

Council as local planning authority has a legal duty of care to protect

biodiversity.

The application property does not fall within a designated SPA, SAC, SNCI or

SSSI. It is not within 200m of ancient woodland or water, and is not an

agricultural building or barn. The application is accompanied by a Phase 1

Habitat and Protected Species Scoping Survey by Landscape Design

Architecture Ltd. Surrey Wildlife Trust has reviewed this survey, and has

commented that it provides sufficient information to enable the LPA to

determine the likely effect on protected and important species. Subject to the

development being carried out in accordance with the recommendations

contained therein, no objection is raised to the proposals on the grounds of

biodiversity in accordance with Policy D5 of the Local Plan 2002.

Water Frameworks Regulations 2011

The European Water Framework Directive came into force in December 2000

and became part of UK law in December 2003. It gives us an opportunity to

plan and deliver a better water environment, focusing on ecology. It is

designed to:

• enhance the status and prevent further deterioration of aquatic

ecosystems and associated wetlands which depend on the aquatic

ecosystems

• promote the sustainable use of water

• reduce pollution of water, especially by ‘priority’ and ‘priority hazardous’

substances

• ensure progressive reduction of groundwater pollution

The proposal would not conflict with these regulations.

Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010 Implications

Policy D9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan encourages and seeks

provision for everyone, including people with disabilities, to new development

involving buildings or spaces to which the public have access. Officers

consider that the proposal complies with this policy. A full assessment against

the relevant Building Regulations would be captured under a separate

assessment should permission be granted. From the 1st October 2010, the

Equality Act replaced most of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). The

Equality Act 2010 aims to protect disabled people and prevent disability

discrimination. Officers consider that the proposal would not discriminate

against disability, with particular regard to access. It is considered that there

would be no equalities impact arising from the proposal.

Human Rights Implications

The proposal would have no material impact on human rights.

Environmental Impact Regulations 2011

The proposal is considered not to be EIA development under either Schedule

1 or 2 of the EIA Impact Regulations 2011 or a variation/amendment of a

previous EIA development nor taken in conjunction with other development

that is likely to have a significant environmental effect.

Third party comments

The comments and concerns raised by third parties have been carefully

considered. Officers acknowledge the concerns raised with regards to the

relationship of Plots A10-A12 and Plot A1 to the properties in Chestnut

Avenue. However, for the reasons given it is considered that the residential

relationship would be acceptable in this instance. However, officers consider

that the relationship of Plots A8 and A9, on the higher, southern part of the

site, would not be acceptable and would result in direct overlooking and loss

of amenity, together with an overbearing impact, having regard to the elevated

position of the site in relation to these dwellings. In this respect, officers agree

with the objectors that the relationship of the proposed development would

cause material harm to the amenity of occupiers of No’s 63-67 Green Lane

and the two new dwellings at No.11 Chestnut Avenue by way of overbearing

impact, overlooking and loss of privacy.

Development Management Procedure (Amendment) Order - working in a

positive/proactive manner

In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a

positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of paragraphs

186-187 of the NPPF. This included:-

• Provided or made available pre application advice to seek to resolve

problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of

sustainable development.

• Have suggested amendments to the scheme to resolve identified problems

with the proposal and to seek to foster sustainable development.

• Have proactively communicated with the applicant through the process to

advise progress, timescales or recommendation.

Conclusion/ planning judgement

The proposal would represent a sustainable use of previously developed land,

and would provide a significant amount of affordable housing which would

meet an identified housing need. The general design and layout for the

scheme are considered to be acceptable. However, the proposed

development would fail to ensure that the privacy and amenity of existing

residents are not materially diminished. Specifically, the scheme would result

in actual and perceived overlooking to the rear private amenity spaces at No’s

63-67 Green Lane. It would also result in harmful overlooking to the two new

properties at No.11 Chestnut Avenue, and would result in an unduly

dominating form of development, having regard to the height of the buildings

proposed and the change in levels between the site and those neighbouring

properties.

Officers consider that the benefit of a significant provision of affordable

housing should not justify a reduced level of residential amenity for existing

surrounding residents.

Officers therefore consider that the adverse impacts of the development,

namely the impact on existing residential amenity, would significantly and

demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, including the supply of

affordable housing, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF. The

proposal should be resisted and permission refused.

Recommendation

That, subject to consideration of the views of the Lead Local Flood Authority

and South East Water, and completion of a legal agreement to secure

affordable housing and contributions towards the Thames Basin Heaths SPA

Avoidance Strategy, permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Reason

The proposal, by reason of the height and juxtaposition of the proposed

dwellings to neighbouring properties, together with their elevated position,

would result in an unacceptable residential relationship and loss of amenity by

reason of overlooking and loss of privacy, and would have an overbearing

impact in relation to properties at No.11 Chestnut Avenue. The proposal

would fail to comply with the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and

paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

2. Reason

The proposal fails to provide affordable housing (within the meaning of the

NPPF 2012) to meet local housing need and as such conflicts with paragraph

50 of the NPPF 2012 and Policy H5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan

2002.

3. Reason

The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposals (in combination

with other projects) would have a likely adverse effect on the integrity of the

Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) in that it is now widely

recognised that increasing urbanisation of the area around the SPA has a

continuing adverse effect on its interest features, namely nightjar, woodlark

and Dartford warbler, the three internationally rare bird species for which it is

classified. Accordingly, since the planning authority is not satisfied that

Regulation 62 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010

(The Habitats Regulation) applies in this case, it must refuse permission in

accordance with Regulation 61 (5) of the Habitats Regulations and Article 6

(3) of Directive 92/43/EE. The proposal conflicts with Policy D5 of the

Waverley Borough Local Plan, Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan and

paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

Informatives

1. The drawing numbers relevant to this decision are: 072-100, 072-101 Rev C,

072-200 Rev B, 072-201 Rev B, 072-202 Rev A, 072-203 Rev B, 072-204,

072-205 Rev B, 072-300, 072-301, SD14279-01A Sheets 1-3, SD14279-02A

Sheets 1-3, SD14279-03A Sheets 1-3, TVH/1282/01, TVH/1282/02, L1009-

2.1-PP-0001.

2. The Council confirms that in assessing this planning application it has worked

with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the requirements

of paragraph 186-187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.