14/P/00634, 1 Dorrit Crescent, Guildford
N
Not to scale
App No:
Type: F
8 Wk Deadline: 18/06/2014
14/P/00634
Appn Type:
Full Application
Case Officer: Matthew Harding
Parish: Worplesdon
Ward:
Worplesdon
Agent : Mr Minett
Applicant: Mr Hurst / Hodges
BBF Fielding Ltd
1 Dorrit Crescent
Fielding House Chobham
Worplesdon
Road
Surrey
Woking
GU3 3AL
Surrey
GU21 6JD
Location:
1 Dorrit Crescent, Guildford, GU3 3AL
Proposal:
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two
semi-detached dwellings with attached car ports and associated
external works.
This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters
of objection have been received, contrary to the officer's recommendation.
Site description.
The lies within the Guildford urban area within a built-up residential area. The area is mixed
in character, with Dorrit Crescent comprising predominantly bungalows, with two storey
houses in Bramble Close. The site is within the 400m-5km buffer zone of the Thames
Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.
The application property is a detached bungalow, and there is a terrace of 3 x two storey
houses on the adjacent site to the west (approved 1987) in Broad Street.
Proposal.
Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of two semi-detached dwellings with attached
car ports and associated external works.
Site area - 0.0943 hectares
Unit nos.
Height
Depth (ground floor)
Depth (first floor)
Width
On site parking (per unit)
Site density (dph)
Existing building Refused Scheme
(12/P/00022)
1 x 2 bed unit
3 x 2 bed units
5.51 metres
8.67 metres
8.4 metres
9.73 metres
N/A
9.73 metres
9 metres
13.76 metres
4 spaces
1.33 spaces
11
32
1
Revised proposal
(14/P/00634)
2 x 3 bed units
8.1 metres
12.15 metres
9.23 metres
10.6 metres
2 spaces
21
Relevant planning history.
Permission was granted in 1987 for a terrace of 3 x 2 bed town houses on the adjacent plot
(87/P/00486).
12/P/00022 - Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 3 no. 2-bedroom dwellings.
Refused, 29/02/2012, for the following reasons:
1) The proposed development, by virtue of its two storey design, would fail to respect the
established character of Dorrit Crescent, and would have an unduly prominent and
unacceptable impact on the local street scene. Furthermore, the front garden would become
car-dominated frontage, which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the
area. This would be contrary to policies G5 and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan (as
saved by CLG Direction dated 24/9/07).
2) The proposed development, by virtue of its proximity to the boundaries shared with 26
Broad Street and 14 Bramble Close, its two storey height, and positioning of rear facing
windows, would result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy for the residents of these
properties. Furthermore, the close proximity of the new dwellings to the boundary with 2
Dorrit Crescent, and their two storey height, would be overbearing and unduly prominent
when viewed from the 3 windows on the side elevation of 2 Dorrit Crescent, and would also
lead to a loss of light. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies G1(3) and H4 of
the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/7/09).
3) The 4 proposed parking spaces in the front garden of 1 Dorrit Crescent fail to meet the
requirements of the Council's Vehicle Parking Standards SPD. There is no available useable
space in the car parking area serving the adjacent development, 26-28 Broad Street, for use
as additional parking to serve the proposed development. The failure to provide the required
level of parking on the site indicates an overdevelopment of the site, and would increase the
likelihood of on-street parking in the surrounding residential roads. This would be
unacceptable, and would be contrary to policy G1(2) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan
2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and the Council's Vehicle Parking Standards
SPD (2006).
4) The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant impact
on the Special Protection Area and in the absence of an appropriate assessment, is unable
to satisfy itself that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the
Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area, which is within the 2 - 5km buffer zone. In
this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of
the SPA, including impact on hydrology of the area; the deterioration of the quality of the
habitat; and an increased disturbance to birds. No avoidance measures are proposed and,
as such, the development is contrary to policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough
Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07).
2
5) The following levels of contribution and provisions would normally be sought from the
applicant had the application been supported.
•
A contribution for avoidance works at Parsonage Watermeadows Nature Reserve, in
accordance with the tariffs set in Guildford Borough Council's Thames Basin Heath SPA
Avoidance Strategy (2009 - 2014) for SANGS contributions;
Without a Section 106 Agreement from the applicant agreeing to these contributions and
provisions an objection is raised in accordance with policies G6 of the Guildford Borough
Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007) and the Thames Basin Heath
SPA Avoidance Strategy (2009 - 2014).
The Planning Inspector's general conclusions in dismissing the appeal were as follows:
•
•
•
•
the proposal would not unduly harm the character or appearance of the area;
the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of
no.2 Dorrit Crescent from loss of daylight and sunlight and to the occupiers of 26 Broad
Street by reason of loss of privacy within the garden;
by reason of inadequate parking the proposal would result in harm to highway safety
unacceptable inconvenience to other road users; and
although the Council is not able to identify a five year housing land supply and that
adding to the housing stock at this point in time (and on land in the urban area) is a
weighty material consideration in favour of granting planning permission, the harms
identified are not outweighed by the identified benefits.
Consultations.
Worplesdon Parish Council: Object on the following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
unacceptable impact on the context and character of the area, contrary to policy H4;
existing bungalow stock in parish limited, with ageing population bungalows should
therefore be retained (officer comment: there is no policy requirement to retain
bungalows);
loss of light, particularly to no. 2 Dorrit Crescent;
impact of highway safety;
insufficient on site parking - knock on adverse impact on present on-street parking;
a flood risk assessment has not been provided (Officer note: the site does not lie within
flood zone 2 or 3 and does not have an area in excess of 1 hectare. A flood risk
assessment is therefore not required for the proposal); and
existing sewage system at capacity, increase in housing stock would have detrimental
impact on the sewage system.
Thames Water: no objection with regard to sewerage capacity.
County Highway Authority: "The County Highway Authority has undertaken an assessment
in terms of the likely net additional traffic generation, access arrangements and parking
provision and are satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the
safety and operation of the adjoining public highway. The County Highway Authority
therefore has no highway requirements."
Natural England: no objection, subject to the proposal being in accordance with the Council's
adopted SPA avoidance strategy.
3
Westborough, Broadacres and District Res. Assc: Object on the following grounds:
•
•
•
•
•
in essence and in-principle the same as the 2012 application for 3 houses (12/P/00022)
(officer comment: the scheme is now for two dwellings);
unacceptable impact on street scene and character of the area;
loss of privacy to those occupants of the neighbouring properties;
insufficient parking; and
adverse impact on mains drainage infrastructure.
Third party comments:
29 letters of representation have been received raising the following concerns and
comments:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
out of character with the area;
increase in traffic;
overlooking of existing properties within Dorrit Crescent;
loss of light;
further pressure on parking in the road;
overdevelopment of a small plot;
garden grabbing;
proposal would set a precedent for similar development within Dorrit Crescent (officer
note: each and every application is determined on its own relative planning merits);
reduction in bungalow housing stock;
degradation of existing wildlife habitats - destruction of mature trees and hedgerows;
increase risk of surface water flooding;
displacement of parking spaces serving 26, 27 and 28 Broad Street (officer note: the
proposed access would not result in a reduction / displacement of the existing off street
parking serving 26, 27 and 28 Broad Street, with the access being off a narrow section of
the drive where it is not possible to park a vehicle and allow space for vehicles to pass);
crescent wide enough for two way traffic - one more dwelling unlikely to cause parking
problems; and
unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance during the construction period (officer
comment: a condition limiting hours of construction is recommended).
Planning policies.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2012.
Acheiving Sustainable Development - Core Planning Principles
Chapter 6 - Proving a choice of high quality homes
Chapter 7 - Requiring good design
Chapter 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG).
South East Plan 2009
NRM6 Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area
4
Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007):
G1
G5
G6
H4
NE1
NE4
General Standards of Development
Design Code
Planning Benefits
Housing in Urban Areas
Potential Special Protection Areas
Species Protection
Supplementary Planning Documents / Guidance.
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Interim SPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014
Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011)
Residential Design Guide SPG (2004)
Planning Contributions SPD (2011)
Vehicle Parking Standards SPD (2006)
Planning considerations.
This application has been submitted in an attempt to overcome the previous reasons for
refusal on application 12/P/00022, which proposed three new dwellings, and the subsequent
dismissed appeal. This is a significant material consideration in the assessment and
determination of this revised application. The following changes have been made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
reduction in dwelling numbers from a terrace of three dwellings to a pair of
semi-detached dwellings;
reduction in ridge height by 0.57 metres and introduction of a hipped roof in lieu of the
previous gable end roof;
reduction in depth at first floor level by 0.49 metres;
reduction in overall building width by 3.16 metres;
reconfiguration of on-site parking and driveway layout; and
two storey built form moved forward and set a greater distance from the side (north)
boundary line.
However, whilst the previous scheme is a material planning consideration, this application
must be determined on its own merits. The application site is located within the urban area,
where the principle of development is acceptable, subject to compliance with relevant
planning policies. The main planning considerations in this case therefore relate to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
impact on the character of the area
impact on neighbouring amenity
impact on trees and vegetation
highway and parking considerations
flooding
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
S.106 requirements
legal agreement requirements
sustainable design and construction
5
Impact on the character of the area
The application site lies within the urban area of Guildford in a residential area on the corner
of Dorrit Crescent and Broad Street. Dorrit Crescent is a U-shaped crescent comprising
bungalows, some with dormer windows. The application site lies within a residential area,
with bungalows, terraced housing and commercial uses within the wider area. However,
the immediate site surroundings are characterised by semi-detached and detached
bungalows / chalet bungalows within Dorrit Crescent.
The present building on the site is a detached bungalow set back from the building line of the
neighbouring property, following the junction in the road between Broad Street and Dorrit
Crescent. The neighbouring property to the north of the site is a semi-detached bungalow
(2 Dorrit Crescent) and the neighbouring building to the west is a two storey terrace building,
comprising three dwellings (26, 27 and 28 Broad Street). This building fronts Broad Street
and lies at a lower ground level than the application site.
The proposal is for the erection of a two storey semi-detached buildings, each comprising
three bedrooms, following the demolition of the existing bungalow on the site. The building
details facing brickwork at ground floor level, tile hanging at first floor level, brick course
detailing and attached single bay car port and front porch.
The existing bungalow and its plot form the corner between Broad Street and Dorrit
Crescent. The plot relates to both these roads and a two storey form of development has
been found to be acceptable under the recent appeal decision, for the two storey terrace
proposal (12/P/00022).
As per the previous proposal (12/P/00022), the proposed building is set back from those
bungalows along the western side of Dorrit Crescent and, with the exception of the increase
in depth at ground floor level, details reductions in height, width and depth, compared to the
previous refusal. In addition, the development would have a greater separation distance at
two storey level to 2 Dorrit Crescent and remains slightly behind the building line of 26-28
Broad Street. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to have an adverse
impact on the character and appearance of the area that would materially conflict with the
requirements of saved local plan policies G5 and H4 or the advice contained within the
NPPF, March 2012.
The proposed development would make effective and good use of urban land, within a
sustainable location and provide a net gain of housing on the site. Although the proposal
would result in just the one additional dwelling on the site, this is a beneficial aspect of the
proposal, particularly in light of the lack of an existing five year housing land supply within
the borough.
Impact on neighbouring amenity
The application site is bordered by residential properties to both side and rear boundaries.
26 and 27 Broad Street share the side (south-west) boundary line, with 26 Broad Street
being the closest to the development, with an existing sunroom on its rear elevation. This
neighbouring site has a short rear garden.
To the north of the site lies 2 Dorrit Crescent, a semi-detached bungalow with three windows
in the flank elevation facing the application site. These windows serve primary habitable
accommodation, with two of the three windows serving two bedrooms and a further window
serving the lounge.
6
The previous proposal for a terraced building, with a ridge height of 8.67 metres and gable
end roof form, positioned between five and seven metres from 2 Dorrit Crescent was
concluded by both the Council and the Planning Inspector to result in an unacceptable loss
of daylight and sunlight to the occupant(s) of this building. However, the proposal was not
considered to result in an unacceptable loss of outlook or privacy.
In addition, the previous proposal was also considered to result in an unacceptable loss of
privacy to the occupants of 26 Broad Street but was not considered, by either the Council or
the Planning Inspector, to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, daylight or outlook to
those other neighbouring and surrounding buildings.
The proposed building is in a similar position on the plot to that of the earlier refused scheme
(12/P/00022), with the notable revisions being the front elevation of the building brought two
metres forward, closer to Broad Street and Dorrit Crescent, and this proposal provides a
greater separation distance between the two storey built form of the building and both
shared side boundary lines.
As this revised scheme details a reduction in built form at first floor level and the window
openings and positioning of the building are similar to that of the earlier application
(12/P/00022), it is also not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of light, privacy and
outlook to those neighbouring and surrounding buildings consistent with that of the earlier
application (12/P/00022). This report will consider the impact of the current application on 2
Dorrit Crescent and 26 Broad Street.
•
2 Dorrit Crescent
The two storey aspect of the dwellings proposed is positioned between 5.8 and 10.2 metres
away from 2 Dorrit Crescent, with the proposed open sided car port positioned 4.2 and 7
metres from this neighbouring property. The proposed development is positioned to the
south-west of this neighbouring property and has a single first floor side window facing it,
serving a bathroom.
The two storey built form of this revised proposal is positioned 1.2 metres further off the
shared boundary line than the earlier proposal (12/P/00022), with the following additional
revisions being: a reduction in the two storey depth of the building by approximately half a
metre (0.49m), ridge height by, again approximately, half a metre (0.57m), and details a fully
hipped roof.
The cumulative result of the aforementioned revisions has resulted in a notable reduction in
the two storey massing of the proposal, when compared to the refused application
(12/P/00022). There is no disputing that the proposed building is both larger and closer to 2
Dorrit Crescent than the existing building on site and lies to the south-west of this building.
However, whilst the proposal would result in some loss of light to 2 Dorrit Crescent, because
of the increase in spacing and reduction in built form at first floor level and above, the impact
in this regard is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight and daylight to
an extent that would justify refusal on this basis.
The proposed car port is positioned close to the shared boundary line, which is open sided in
nature and details a hipped roof form. For these reasons, the car port is not considered to
result in an unacceptable loss of light to the occupiers of 2 Dorrit Crescent. Neither is it
considered to have an unacceptably overbearing impact.
7
The rear facing windows are orientated towards the rear of the site and 2 Dorrit Crescent
and the one side facing window is detailed to be obscure glazed and top opening only. The
proposal would therefore not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers of this
neighbouring property.
•
26 Broad Street
26 Broad Street is positioned some 10 metres away from the two storey corner of the
proposed building, with the two storey rear elevation of the application building, stepped
back and away from the boundary line. This set back provides a greater separation
distance to 26 Broad Street compared to the previous application (12/P/00022), by three
metres.
The proposed building and first floor bedroom window closest to the boundary line would
have oblique views of both the sunroom and the rear garden serving 26 Broad Street.
These windows are orientated to the rear of the plot and although the proposal would result
in oblique views of this neighbouring property, any potential overlooking is consistent with
the relationship with 27 Broad Street and that of an urban residential context. The built form
is set off the boundary line and the side facing windows would overlook an existing car park
and the less sensitive side elevation of 26 Broad Street. As such, the proposed
development is not considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupants
of this building.
This application therefore complies with policy G1 (3) and H4 of the saved Local Plan,
together with the advice contained within the NPPF, March 2012, and is considered to have
overcome the previous reason for refusal relating to an earlier scheme on neighbouring
amenity grounds.
Impact on trees and vegetation
There is some vegetation, trees and scrub on the site. None of the existing vegetation is
considered high quality and no objection is therefore raised to its loss.
Highway and parking considerations
The existing access to the bungalow is from Dorrit Crescent. There is a long driveway
leading to a garage in the rear garden. The proposed access to the new dwellings would be
via Broad Street, using the same access to the car parking area serving 26-28 Broad Street.
Whilst third party objections have been raised to this access, the County Highway Authority
does not object and a reason for refusal on this aspect of the proposal would be unjustified.
With regards to the level of parking provision, two off street spaces are proposed for each of
the three bedroom houses. The Council's adopted Vehicle Parking Standards (SPD)
outlines two parking spaces (maximum) for three or more bed units. The proposed
development accords with Council's adopted standards and as such the proposed
development is not considered to have an adverse impact on the existing levels of on-street
parking. The proposed development therefore complies with policy G1 (1) of the saved
local plan and the Council's adopted SPD - Vehicle Parking Standards, 2006.
8
Flooding
The application site does not lie within a flood risk zone, although the concerns of the
occupants of the neighbouring and surrounding properties are noted. Despite the increase
massing of the proposed replacement building, its footprint and the hard surface area is not
significantly greater than that of the existing built form on the site. Furthermore, the new
areas of hardsurfacing, specifically the driveways and rear patios, can be constructed in
such a way that they are permeable and do not significantly increase surface water runoff
from the site. Because of these facts, the proposed development will not increase the risk
to people or property from flooding.
Impact on the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area
The proposed development may adversely impact the TBHSPA. The Council’s adopted
TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (February 2010) requires a SANG contribution of
£5413.73, which includes the Access Management contribution to avoid any adverse impact.
The applicant will be informed of the (SANG) avoidance site at the time of, or following
payment. A planning obligation is required in accordance with the terms of the Strategy and
with this in place the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard.
S.106 requirements
The following contributions are being secured by way of a S.106 legal agreement. The
figures noted below are based on the description of the development, which proposes the
net gain of one four bedroom property on the site.
Legal agreement requirements
The three tests as set out in Regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy
Regulations 2010 (as amended) require S.106 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.
As well as the legal tests, paragraph 203 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities
should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable
through the use of conditions or planning obligations and planning obligations should only be
used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through a planning condition.
Paragraph 204 of the NPPF includes the same tests as mentioned above.
The application proposes the provision of two four bedroom residential units, a net gain of
one residential unit of the site. In order for the development to be acceptable in planning
terms, a S.106 agreement is required as part of any subsequent planning approval to secure
a financial contribution towards a SANG, in line with the Guildford Borough Council TBHSPA
Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (February 2010). This strategy has been formally adopted
by the Council. In line with this strategy and the requirements of Regulation 61 of the
Habitats Regulations, a S106 agreement is required to ensure that the additional residential
units proposed by this development will not have any likely significant effect on the TBHSPA.
The level of financial contribution sought is required to be in line with the specific tariffs set
out in the adopted Avoidance Strategy which relate to the number of residential units and
number of bedrooms proposed.
The requirement for the S106 agreement meets the three tests set out above and with a
S106 agreement in place, the proposed development is acceptable in planning terms.
9
Sustainable design and construction
The Council's Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2011 requires that all new
dwellings achieve Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH), minimum Level 3 and a 10%
reduction in carbon emissions. It is not known which technologies would be used to help
achieve a 10% reduction in carbon emissions but this requirement and detail, along with the
CfSH Level 3 could be secured by condition on any approval.
Conclusion.
The site is in an urban area where there is no in-principle objection to the erection of pair of
semi-detached dwellings, resulting in the net gain of one residential unit on the plot. The
proposed building has been considered in full, in light of the most recent refused proposal on
the site and Inspector's decision (12/P/00022), whereby it has been concluded that the
revised proposal would not have an undue adverse impact on the character of the area,
would not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of the
neighbouring and surrounding buildings nor have an adverse impact on amenity and health
of the mature deciduous trees to the rear of the site or significantly increase the risk to
people and property from flooding. Finally, the proposal includes off street parking in
accordance with the Council's standards and would not have an adverse impact on the
present levels of on street parking. This application therefore complies with policies G1,
G5, H4 and NE1 of the saved local plan, the Council's SPD: Vehicle Parking Standards 2006
and the requirements of the NPPF, March 2012. The proposal is therefore recommended
for approval, subject to appropriate conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
Subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing:
•
a SANGS contribution of £5413.73 (inclusive of the SPA access and
manage ment contribution)
the recommendation is to:
Approve subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three
years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
10
2.
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans and documentation:
Block Plan - 10784 [PL] 02 (received on 23/04/2014);
Site Plan - 10784 [PL] 03 (received on 23/04/2014);
Proposed Floor Plans - 10784 [PL] 04 (received on 23/04/2014);
Proposed Elevations - 10784 [PL] 05 (received on 23/04/2014);
Topographical Survey - SD10201-01 (received on 23/04/2014);
Street Elevations - 10784 [PL] 06 (received on 20/05/2014);
Design and Access Statement - Project No. 10784 April 2014 Rev. B (received on
23/04/2014).
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the
approved plans and in the interests of proper planning.
3.
No development shall take place until details and samples of the proposed external
materials for the building and hardstanding, including colour and finish have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
samples.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the building is satisfactory.
4.
No development shall take place until details of existing and proposed finished site
levels, finished floor and ridge levels of the buildings to be erected, and finished
external surface levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be constructed in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In order to ensure the height of the development is appropriate to the
character of the area and in order to safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties.
5.
No development shall start on site until details of all boundary treatments have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
development.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and the locality.
6.
Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted, including
works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall not take place
other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays and between
0800 am and 13.30 pm Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank or National
Holidays.
Reason: To protect the neighbours from noise and disturbance outside the
permitted hours during the construction period.
11
7.
The window(s) in the side (south-west and north-east) elevations of the
development hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass and permanently
fixed shut, unless the parts of the window/s which can be opened are more than
1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed and shall
thereafter be permanently retained as such.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy.
8.
Prior to first occupation, a final certification of compliance and assessment report
from an assessor accredited by the Building Research Establishment Limited, or
equivalent national body, shall be submitted to the local planning authority
demonstrating that the development has achieved, as a minimum, Code for
Sustainable Homes Level 3, or any such equivalent national measure of
sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme.
Reason: To improve the overall sustainability of the development.
9.
No development shall start on site until details of (i) the predicted energy use of the
development; and (ii) the type(s) of low or zero carbon technologies to be used,
have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.
These details will demonstrate how the development will achieve at least a 10%
reduction in carbon emissions. Such details as may be approved shall be
implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained and
maintained for the lifetime of the building.
Reason: To optimise renewable energy and its conservation.
10.
The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out
within the site in accordance with No new development shall be occupied until
space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for
cars to be parked. The parking areas shall be used and retained exclusively for
their designated use.
Reason: In order that the development provides adequate off street parking and
does not should not prejudice highway safety nor cause inconvenience to other
highway users.
12
Informatives:
1.
In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy
Framework, Guildford Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach to
development proposals focused on looking for solutions. We work with applicants
in a positive and proactive manner by
1. Offering a pre application advice service
2. Updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of
their application and where possible suggesting solutions
In this instance the applicant did enter into pre-application discussions prior to the
submission of this application. A number of revisions were advised and requests
to reduce the built form where recommended. These matters have been
addressed through the submission of this application and the proposal is now
deemed to be consistent with the relevant policies of the Local Plan and NPPF.
2.
If you need any advice regarding Building Regulations please do not hesitate to
contact Guildford Borough Council Building Control on 01483 444545
or buildingcontrol@guildford.gov.uk
3.
Attention is drawn to the provisions of the Planning Obligation of even date
pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4.
The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from
the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly
loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover
any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfaces and
prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).
5.
Waste material from the demolition / construction of the buildings to which this
application refers, will be classed as 'Trade Waste' for the purposes of legislative
control. Such waste may be carefully disposed of and be transported to a legal
waste disposal site by a registered carrier. The Waste Regulatory Authority is the
Environment Agency.
6.
Emissions of dust (demolition, various construction works), exhaust fumes (fixed
plant, vehicles), smoke (burning of waste) and noise (reversing alarms, plant,
power tools), can all be deemed to be a statutory nuisances under the remit of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Developer should therefore ensure that
all demolition / construction activities are undertaken in such a manner that 'Best
Practicable Means' is employed at all times to minimise the impact of the
development on the occupants of the nearby residential properties. The local
Environmental Health Officer shall be consulted where the local residents are likely
to be adversely affected.
13
7.
The applicant is advised that the site should be assessed for the presence of
asbestos materials prior to the commencement of any works. Any work with
asbestos, including removal, shall be carried out in accordance with the Asbestos
at Work Regulations 2012.
14