ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
24 SEPTEMBER 2003
ITEM 4
REVISED DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE ON SINGLE PLOT
AND OTHER TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL INFILL DEVELOPMENT
Report of the:
Chief Planning Officer
Contact:
Ransford Stewart
Urgent Decision?(yes/no)
No.
If yes, reason urgent decision required:
N/A
Annexes/Appendices (attached):
Annexe 1 – List of Consultees
Other available papers (not attached):
Annexe 2 - Revised Draft Supplementary Planning
Guidance
Epsom & Ewell District-wide Local Plan May 2000
PPG3 Housing
PPG12 Development Plans
To seek approval of the revised draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on single plot
and other types of residential infill development
Notes
RECOMMENDATIONS
(1)
That the revised Supplementary Planning Guidance on
single plot and other types of residential infill
development be approved.
(2)
That the revised Supplementary Planning Guidance on
single plot and other types of residential infill
development be approved for development control
purposes.
1
Implications for Committee’s Key Service Priorities
1.1
2
This report relates to the Committee’ responsibility for the preparation of land use
policy statements and briefs for specific areas. The preparation of this Guidance is
a target in the Service Improvement Plan that arose from the Best Value Review
on Environmental Protection and Community Enhancement – Role of Planning,
Building Control and Environmental Health.
Introduction
2.1
The thrust towards higher housing densities and the better use of urban land, in
particular brownfield land, is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3
“Housing”.
Page 1 of 4
Cttee/Env/Agenda/03-09-24
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
24 SEPTEMBER 2003
3
ITEM 4
2.2
However, PPG 3 is not solely concerned with higher densities; it also seeks to
encourage good design, improved quality of life for all, greater choice of housing
and attractive, high quality environments in which people will choose to live.
2.3
On 25 June 2003, this Committee approved for public consultation new
supplementary planning guidance which set out to stress the Council’s concern to
achieve and maintain a high quality environment and a high standard of
residential amenity for existing residents and residents of proposed development
schemes alongside the other objectives of PPG 3.
2.4
Supplementary planning guidance provides detailed information to developers,
residents and others to guide the formation of development proposals to meet the
Council’s standard and thereby promote the high standards of amenity sought by
the Council. It can also assist in decision-making.
2.5
This report presents a revised version of the Supplementary Planning Guidance
that has been amended in response to comments received through the consultation
exercise.
Proposals
3.1
Copies of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance were sent to 141 separate
institutions, organisations and individuals active in various ways across the
Borough. The list was compiled from databases used for previous planning
consultation exercises by the Planning Service and the Service Improvement Unit.
A full list of the consultees is attached as Annexe 1.
3.2
Letters were sent out on 8th July 2003 inviting responses by 1st August 2003. 10
letters were returned unopened or declining the invitation.
3.3
Detailed comments were received from the following:
 Epsom & Ewell Local Agenda 21 Open Spaces Group
 Epsom & Ewell Local Agenda 21 Transport Group
 Surrey County Council Sustainable Development Group
 Government Office for the South East
 Epsom Protection Society
 Association of Ewell Downs Residents
 Stamford Ward Residents Association
 Chris Grayling M.P.
 Elmbridge Borough Council
 The Planning Bureau (on behalf of McCarthy & Stone)
 Allplans Ltd
 Mr O.W. Reynolds
 Mr G.R. Perry
Page 2 of 4
Cttee/Env/Agenda/03-09-24
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
24 SEPTEMBER 2003
ITEM 4
3.4
Generally, the comments received were supportive of the Supplementary Planning
Guidance, recognising its role in guiding applicants and others interested in
development. The Epsom Protection Society, for instance, observe that it may
help to discourage town cramming: the Open Spaces Group welcome the
emphasis on space around buildings and the Association of Ewell Downs
Residents comment on the clarification and strengthening of local plan policy
provided by the Supplementary Planning Guidance.
3.5
Surrey County Council’s Sustainable Development Group confirmed that the
policy is broadly consistent with the Deposit Draft Structure Plan 2002 and
policies DN12 and SE4 in particular. Policy DN12 is of particular interest as it
states that below a particular threshold development should be “of an appropriate
density to safeguard the character of the area”. The threshold currently proposed
is 10 additional dwellings. Members will be aware that these policies have not yet
been subjected to an Examination in Public. It is not therefore proposed to adopt
the County Council’s threshold at the moment although this position can be
reviewed at a later date.
3.6
The Government Office for the South East queries the use of specific
measurements in the policy framework rather than specifying the effect being
sought. Their concern is that this approach may be considered overly prescriptive
and may inhibit more creative solutions. They also raise a concern that the
Supplementary Planning Guidance should support the objectives of PPG3.
Paragraph 2.5 of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance has therefore been
amended to clarify the link to PPG3 and how the standards in the Supplementary
Planning Guidance are proposed to be applied.
3.7
Chris Grayling M.P. has advised that, in his opinion, the Supplementary Planning
Guidance should seek to prevent the wholesale loss of landscaping on
development sites, infill development in cul-de-sacs and developments causing an
increase in traffic above a specified threshold, say 25%. The first point is already
dealt with in paragraph 3.27 of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance which
is concerned with greening the setting of new development. A moratorium on
new development in cul-de-sacs would be considered to be too prescriptive and
would not be possible to defend on appeal without substantial direct evidence of
harm to matters of acknowledged importance arising specifically out of
developments in cul-de-sacs. Finally, guidance on design capacity of various
categories of road is set out in Surrey County Council’s “Surrey Design, A
Strategic Guide for Quality Built Environments”. This is referred to already in
paragraph 3.21 of the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance.
3.8
Most of the other comments received referred to minor matters of detail which
have been addressed as appropriate in the revised draft.
Page 3 of 4
Cttee/Env/Agenda/03-09-24
ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
24 SEPTEMBER 2003
4
3.9
Objections to the Supplementary Planning Guidance were received from Allplans
Ltd and The Planning Bureau. Both were concerned that that the Guidance was
too prescriptive and could prevent modern innovative design and other solutions.
This matter is dealt with above where it has been raised by the Government Office
for the South East. Additionally, the Planning Bureau have asked that paragraph
2.3 is deleted as only statutorily protected buildings should be given this degree of
protection. No changes are proposed in this regard as it is considered that the
local planning authority is charged with dealing with applications for the
demolition of residential properties and it is therefore appropriate for the
Supplementary Planning Guidance to provide guidance on how the local planning
authority would discharge its duties in this regard.
3.10
The revised draft Supplementary Planning Guidance is attached as Annexe 2. It is
intended that the final draft will contain drawings to illustrate key detailed design
elements such as the rear projection of new buildings above ground floor level.
At the time of drafting this report these drawings were not yet complete.
Financial and Manpower Implications
4.1
5
ITEM 4
There are no financial implications arising from this report.
Human Rights and Other Legal Implications
5.1
The Supplementary Planning Guidance amplifies, but does not override, the
policies in the Local Plan. It has been prepared having regard to Planning Policy
Guidance Note 12 “Development Plans” which states that supplementary planning
guidance should be prepared in consultation with the general public and interested
parties and that their views should be taken into account before it is finalised.
6
Social Well-being
As set out in Section 4 above and in the appended revised Supplementary
Planning Guidance.
7
Economic Well-being
7.1
As set out in Section 4 above and in the appended revised Supplementary
Planning Guidance.
8
Environmental Well-being
As set out in Section 4 above and in the appended revised Supplementary
Planning Guidance.
9
Risk Assessment and Conclusions
9.1
There are no implications for the Council arising from this report in this area.
WARD(S) AFFECTED: All
Page 4 of 4
Cttee/Env/Agenda/03-09-24