Waverley Borough Council Home Page Waverley Borough Council Home Page


Waverley Borough Council Committee System - Committee Document

Meeting of the Development Control Committee held on 28/01/2003
APPENDIX A - WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE - 4TH DECEMBER 2002 AND 8TH JANUARY 2003



APPENDIX A

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

WESTERN AREA DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SUB-COMMITTEE -
4TH DECEMBER 2002 AND 8TH JANUARY 2003

REPORT TO THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE
ON 28TH JANUARY 2003

PART I – Reports containing recommendations for decision by the Committee

A. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Your Sub-Committee has considered applications for planning permission, as listed in the Agenda for its meetings on 4th December 2002 and 8th January 2003, and has dealt with these in accordance with the approved scheme of delegation. The following applications are referred to this Committee for consideration:-

A.1WA01/2242
The Ellis Campbell Group
4.1.02
Outline planning application for redevelopment of site for industrial/commercial purposes (within Classes B1 and B2); construction of Enterprise Centre (comprising B1, B2 and B8 uses); together with highway works including an amended access, parking and structural landscaping; and reservation of an area for sui generis (bad neighbour) uses at The Coxbridge Estate, Alton Road, Farnham (as amplified and amended by letters dated 3.1.02 22.2.02, 20.3.02, 5.4.02, 10.4.02, 4.9.02, 19.9.02, 24.9.02, 29.10.02, 11.11.02 and 10.12.02 and plans received 20.9.02 and 30.11.02).
Grid Reference:E: 482470 N: 145874
Town:Farnham
Ward:Castle
Development Plan:Employment Site (Policy IC7), AGLV, Countryside beyond Green Belt, Area for Landscape Enhancement (Policy C6).
Highway Authority:See report
Drainage Authority:See report
Town Council:No objection and welcome this development as an improvement of this area of the town which is currently unattractive. However, concerned at potential traffic conflicts due to having to cross the dual carriageway.
Consultations:See report
Representations:See report

Introduction

This application is referred to the Development Control Committee for determination since it falls within the definition of a ‘most major development’ as set out in the Standing Orders.

This report relates to the outline planning application submitted by the Ellis Campbell Group for the redevelopment of land at the Coxbridge Estate. The site has been identified for employment development in the recently adopted Local Plan. It is subject to Policy IC7 which requires that any development proposals should include an area of managed workspace designed specifically for small/starter businesses and an area reserved for ‘bad neighbour’ development.

The current outline application seeks to establish the framework for the redevelopment for employment purposes, together with the retention of some of the land for ‘bad neighbour’ uses. Although it is an outline application, details are provided of the proposed modification to the access and the structural landscaping of the site.

Description of Site

In total, the site extends to about 8 ha. It lies on the northern side of the A31 Alton Road, to the west of the Coxbridge Roundabout. The site lies mainly in a hollow created by the former sandpit. Thus there are steep banks rising from the floor of the site to the northern, western and southern (roadside) boundaries. These banks increase in height towards the western end of the site as the floor of the site lowers and adjoining ground levels increase. The site is screened by trees along the roadside boundary and the western boundary and the eastern boundary. A public footpath runs along the eastern boundary. About half the site, at the eastern end, has long been used for industrial, storage and ‘bad neighbour’ uses. Some of these remain and there is a car sales operation close to the entrance. There is a limited number of buildings on the site and again these are located at the eastern end. Access to the site is directly on to the A31 dual carriageway. A plan identifying the location of the site is attached as Annexe 1.

As stated above, the eastern end of the site has long been used for industrial/storage purposes, by a variety of operators. The relevant planning history relates to different parts of the site. In order to simplify this, a plan is attached as Annexe 2 identifying as A-E the areas the subject of various previous applications, together with the schedule of history.

Area A was the area used, as some Members may recall, by M & N Contractors as a depot in relation to the installation of cable television in the local area. A temporary permission was granted, but only after a legal agreement was signed indicating some limited highway improvements. The key issue was the impact of extra traffic using the sub-standard access. More recently the site was being used by a waste operation for screening of waste products. This use has ceased.

Area B was used for many years for manufacture and precasting of concrete products within Use Class B2 (General Industrial). A lawful Development Certificate to this effect was issued in 1994. That part of the site is currently used as a contractor’s store.

Area C is the car sales operation that was permitted, on appeal, in 1985. Area D has previously had consents dating back to the 1960s for use as a joinery workshop. Finally, Area E was, until recently, used by Hutchings and Carter as a waste transfer station for the deposit, sorting, screening and re-use of waste products. That particular use was the subject of a planning permission granted by the County Council in 1993. This use has now ceased.

In addition to the history relating to individual sites, there was an outline application made in 1991 (ref. WA91/1566) for the erection of light industrial units, the provision of an area for Bad Neighbour Uses and the construction of a new access. That application was refused and dismissed on appeal in 1993. The application pre-dated the designation of the site for employment purposes. The key issue was whether the inclusion of the light industrial development in ‘enabling’ development was acceptable given the policy restraints at the time. Clearly, with the identification of the site for employment purposes in the latest Local Plan, circumstances have changed.

The eastern end of the site was identified in both the 1984 and 1993 Local Plans for Bad Neighbour Uses. The intention was to reserve the area for both Bad Neighbour Uses relocating from elsewhere in the Borough and for new users that were considered to meet the needs of the Borough.

As indicated above, a Waste Transfer Station operated from the eastern end of the site for a number of years and the site was identified in the County Council’s Waste Local Plan for such purposes.

During the preparation of the latest Local Plan, concern emerged about the loss of industrial and commercial land to other uses and the need to make provision for new employment development, including managed workspace for starter/small businesses. As a result, various sites, including the Coxbridge site, have been identified as suitable for employment development. This designation on the Local Plan has led to the submission of the current application.

The Proposal

This is an outline application for redevelopment of the site for employment purposes. The applicants see it as a masterplan application, establishing the principles of the development. However, the scheme also includes full details of the modified access and the proposed structured landscaping.

The application is accompanied by extensive documentation, including a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The documentation concerns traffic/transportation; landscaping strategy; visual impact study; tree survey; survey of badger activity; ecological assessment; ground and groundwater conditions, contamination, noise and air quality assessment and hydrology.

In terms of proposed uses, these can be divided into three elements:-

1. Enterprise centre;
2. Land for B1 and B2 use;
3. Land reserved for Bad Neighbour use.

The intended location of these uses is shown on the plan accompanying the application, a copy of which is attached as Annexe 3. The applicants state that the total floorspace including the enterprise centre, but excluding the area reserved for ‘bad neighbour’ uses, would not exceed 18,000 sq.m.

Enterprise Centre

An area of 0.5 ha is allocated for an enterprise centre. This would provide space for companies with units ranging from 15 sq.m to 250 sq.m, with an optimum overall size of 2,000 sq.m. The applicants are seeking flexibility for the enterprise centre to be used for either B1 (Business) or B8 (Storage) purposes.

Land for B1 and B2 Uses

The application indicates that some 3.9 ha would be developed for B1/B2 uses. The applicants state that the form of development is not yet known and will depend on market demand. This element of the proposal would provide some 16,000 sq.m of B1/B2 floorspace.

Although this is only an outline proposal, an illustrative layout has been submitted to demonstrate how the site might be developed with 18,000 sq.m. The applicants indicate that a parking ratio of 1:30 would be followed and have suggested that some parking could be below ground level. This illustrative layout has also been used as part of the appraisal of visual impact. Various cross-sections have been submitted which have sought to demonstrate the extent to which buildings of a particular height would be screened from view by the surrounding embankments and trees. As it presently stands, the applicants have identified that buildings at the western end could be up to 12 metres to ridge height with buildings at the eastern end being up to 10 metres to ridge height.

Land for Bad Neighbour Uses

An area of some 1.4 ha is shown at the eastern end of the site reserved for Bad Neighbour Uses. These tend to be ‘one-off’ uses such as depots, waste operations and other uses with a high component of outside storage. They do not normally fall within a specific use class category but instead are ‘sui generis’ uses. The application does not seek consent for a particular Bad Neighbour Use or a range of uses but rather to reserve an identified part of the site for these uses. Clearly specific bad neighbour operators would need to apply for planning permission to use the land on a case-by-case basis.

Structural Landscaping

The application is accompanied by a detailed proposal for structural landscape strategy report. The strategic landscaping proposals effectively define the limits of the area where development can take place. It is stated that the objectives of the landscape design are:-

• screen views into the site;
• retain and enhance existing landscape and character;
• benefit wildlife by improving the habitat on the banks;
• improve the visual appearance of the banks by additional planting;
• maximise the longevity and screening function of the woodland adjacent to the A31; and
• relate the site to the adjacent field patterns.

Transportation Issues

As stated above, the anticipated maximum floorspace of the enterprise centre and the proposed B1/B2 development would be 18,000 sq.m. Based on a parking ratio of 1:30 this would require some 600 parking spaces. The Transport Assessment carried out by Tomalin Highway Planning projects that the trip generation in the morning peak hours (8.00 - 9.00) would be 295 vehicles in, 50 vehicles out (total 345). In the evening peak (5.00 - 6.00) there would be 55 vehicles in, 230 out (total 285).

In order to minimise use of the private car as a means of travelling to and from the development, the applicants have agreed with the Highway Authority the Head of Terms for a legal agreement requiring the production of individual travel plans to be submitted with each detailed application. In order to encourage the use of public transport, financial contributions are proposed towards a bus service to serve the development site from the railway station and town centre, together with the upgrading of bus stop infrastructure. Provision is also to be made for a pedestrian/cycle link along the frontage of the Coxbridge Roundabout.

Additional Supporting Information

As stated above, an extensive amount of supporting documentation is submitted with the application. In particular, the EIA includes extensive supporting material. Attached as Annexe 4 is a copy of the Non-Technical Executive Summary that accompanies the EIA. This summarise the main findings in relation to landscape, visual impact, ecology, ground conditions, noise/dust hydrology and transportation.

Consultations

The following responses have been received from the consultation process.

Surrey County Council (Strategic Planning Consultation) – concludes that although location of site is poor in relation to requirements of Structure Plan Policy LO1, this is outweighed by other material considerations including provision for new and small businesses and bad neighbour uses, environmental and transportation improvements. Provided the outstanding public transport, highway access and parking issues are resolved satisfactorily, no objection is raised.

Surrey County Council (Highway Authority) - No objection subject to appropriate legal agreements to secure:-

1. financial contribution towards a bus service to serve the development site;

2. financial contribution towards upgrading existing bus stops infrastructure;

3. provision of new access and related highway works;

4. provision of pedestrian/cycle links along frontage of A31 Coxbridge roundabout;

5. production of individual travel plans in accordance with agreed Heads of Terms to be submitted with each application.

A number of planning conditions are also recommended.

Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) - Following amendments to landscaping proposals – no objection is raised provided recommendations and comments in the SWT letter are taken into account. These recommendations relate to requirement for management plan; adequate protection during building works; appropriate ecological surveys.

Environment Agency - recommends condition in relation to surface water drainage and additional site investigation over and above that already carried out. Further comments awaited in relation to hydrology and the proposed discharge into the ditch running into the River Wey.

English Nature - Various recommendations in relation to badger protection, other comments in relation to further ecological surveys. Also recommendation that works to trees/shrubs should take place outside the bird nesting season. Reference to proximity of tributary of River Wey passing close to the site. Recommendations in relation to safeguarding the water course.

Environmental Health Section - recommends condition in relation to further survey of potential contamination in vicinity of former petrol station.

East Hampshire District Council - No comments.

The Countryside Agency - Does not fall within scope of work undertaken by Agency therefore does not wish to comment formally.

Representations

One letter received from a resident living opposite the site making following comments:-

Reference to access arrangements. Consider that the amended arrangements could be acceptable as a temporary solution but that only safe solution would be to close gap on central reservation. Recommendations in relation to provision of a roundabout west of River Lane/Runnyside Lane perhaps as part of a relief road for Wrecclesham should this result from the A325 Corridor Study. Applicant should make appropriate contributions.

Shortly prior to the meeting of your Sub-Committee, a further letter was received from the Farnham Society making the following representations:-

1. Given that the site is within the countryside and the AGLV, remains a matter of regret that the historic market town of Farnham is to be permitted to ‘sprawl’ so intensively in this manner;

2. Note financial contribution towards additional public transport but remain concerns that the future accommodation of a roundabout junction on the A31 Alton Road with a Wrecclesham Relief Road has not been included in that ‘agenda’;

3. Given that future developers are likely to be the subject of a serious of planning applications each resulting in the generation of additional traffic movements (including HGVs) all of which will contribute to existing and growing problems at the Coxbridge Roundabout, disappointed that financial contribution towards cost of solving these problems (which could include the closure of the central reservation cross-over) has not been included in the negotiations.

4. Remain concerned at proposed ridge height of the buildings both in terms of immediate visual impact and from further afield across the valley.

5. Concerned in regard to the likely impact of drainage on the River Wey tributary and the river meadows.

Planning Policies

Policy IC7 states:-

‘This site is suitable for development for new industrial and commercial uses.

Any proposal shall include an area of managed workspace designed specifically for small/starter businesses and an area reserved for ‘bad neighbour’ development.

Any proposal to develop this site shall be accompanied by a Transport Assessment and a Travel Plan, together with improvements to the access from the A31 and off-site highway improvements on the A31.

Particular care and attention shall be paid to the design and external appearance of any new buildings. No part of any new development on this site shall intrude over the embankments around the site.

Any proposal shall include a comprehensive landscaping scheme for the whole site to include planting both within the site and on the embankments.

B1 and B2 uses are acceptable subject to Policy D2 and to the identification of part of this site as a Waste Transfer Station in the Surrey Waste Local Plan’.

Policy C6 states:-

‘The Council will seek to secure improvements to the landscape within the Borough, with particular emphasis being given to areas as shown on the Proposals Map which are already showing signs of landscape deterioration. This will be achieved through the control of development and, subject to finance, the preparation of improvement schemes to be implemented’.

A range of other general policies dealing with environmental issues, landscape, trees and traffic/transportation are also relevant. These are:-

Surrey Structure Plan 1994 – EN1, EN2, PE3, PE7, PE8, PE9, PE10, MT2, DP11
Surrey Structure Plan (Deposit Draft) 2001 – LO1, LO5, LO8, SE2, SE3, SE5, SE6, SE7, DN2, DN3.
Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 – D1, D4, D5, D13, D14, C2, C3, C7, IC5, M2, M5, M14.

Main Planning Issues

Having regard to the policy framework and in particular the requirements of Policy IC7, the main issues are considered to be:-

1. whether the mix and location of uses is acceptable;
2. the potential impact of development on its surroundings;
3. access traffic and transportation issues;
4. Ecology/wildlife considerations;
5. other environmental issues (ground conditions, noise, hydrology).

1. Mix and Location of Development

In terms of the mix of uses the proposal complies with Policy IC7 in that it provides both for an area of managed workspace (the enterprise centre) and an area reserved for bad neighbour uses. The policy does not specify how large these should be or where they should be located on site. However, in terms of the application, the allocations proposed are considered acceptable. The bad neighbour use would occupy some 1.4 ha. It is estimated that in the past the former bad neighbour uses extended over an area of 2 – 2.5 ha. However, that was poorly planned and laid out. Overall it is felt that this area is adequate to meet the likely needs for this type of space. The location at the eastern end, where it is at present, is also considered to be logical.

In terms of the enterprise centre, this would provide up to 2,000 sq.m of space. The facility would occupy a focal position, again towards the eastern end where it could be provided at the initial stage of development.

With regard to phasing, the applicant’s programme indicates that if outline planning permission is forthcoming in early 2003, then the detailed agreements and design of infrastructure would be concluded by mid-2003; there would be a start on site in summer 2003; infrastructure works would be completed by the end of 2003; building works would commence late 2003/early 2004 and the enterprise centre would be completed by mid-2004.

2. Potential Impact of Development on its Surroundings

Although this is an outline application, an illustrative layout has been submitted to demonstrate how a development of this type and magnitude could be accommodated on the site. The EIA includes an assessment of visual impact which reveals that it is currently very difficult to see into the site from any public vantage points other than the adjoining public footpath and the present entrance. This results partly from the fact that much of the site is in a hollow and partly as a result of the natural screening. In winter months the site is not so well screened. For example, there are then views into the site from the A31, through the tree belt.

It is clear from the application that not only would there be significantly more development on the site, the buildings themselves would be considerably higher than any that exist at present. The applicants have indicated that the development would be contained within the floor of the site without impacting on the surrounding embankments. Thus, on all sides, there is a reasonable margin retained for existing and new planting.

An illustrative layout has been submitted indicating how a development of 18,000 sq.m could be arranged on site. Officers consider that this demonstrated that a spacious and well landscaped development could be achieved. The applicants have also indicated by cross-sections how buildings of up to 12 metres ridge height at the western end and 10 metres ridge height at the eastern end could be achieved.

Policy IC7 indicates that no part of the development shall intrude over the embankments surrounding the site. The surrounding banks vary in height but the cross-sections do demonstrate that buildings would not intrude above the level of the planting that surrounds the site. However, the buildings would be higher in some cases than the banks themselves. Officers estimate, for example, that on the A31 frontage buildings of this height might be up to 6-7 metres above the height of the banks. Screening would be provided by existing and proposed planting but, as stated above, this screening would be much less effective in winter months.

In addition, it is likely that the upper parts of new buildings would be viewed from further afield. At present it is very difficult to see into the site itself from more distant locations. However, if the buildings are up to the height of the northern embankment then it is inevitable that some of the development will become visible from further afield.

Officers fully acknowledge that this development will not be completely screened from view. However, it is necessary to strike a careful balance between a development where buildings are glimpsed through or above a robust and well maintained tree screen, and one where the scale and height of buildings becomes unduly intrusive. Officers have given careful consideration to the issue of building heights and are not persuaded, on present evidence, that there should be an acceptance at this outline stage that buildings can be up to 12 metres high. Officers believe that the appropriate way to deal with the issue at this outline stage would be not to prescribe any specific height or conditions but to indicate, by way of informative, that the Council would expect that detailed plans for each stage of the development to demonstrate that the buildings would not be intrusive either in terms of close views or distant views.

3. Traffic and Transportation Issues

Representatives of the Highway Authority have been in discussion with the applicants for some time over highway and transportation matters. The Highway Authority has confirmed that the proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions and legal agreements to secure both the modified access and a package of measures to encourage alternative modes of transport.

4. Ecology/Wildlife Considerations

The EIA includes survey information in relation to flora and fauna on the site. In particular, there is a detailed assessment of the potential effect on badger setts that exist on some of the embankments. Surrey Wildlife and English Nature have made various recommendations both in relation to survey work already carried out and additional surveys that would need to be made before development takes place.

The latest version of the strategic landscape drawing incorporates amendments suggested by Surrey Wildlife. These include extensions to the badger protection zones, and revisions to planting proposals in the interests of existing wildlife. The extent of regarding of the embankments has been reduced again in the interests of wildlife and ecology.

In the officers’ view, the information available and modifications made are sufficient to allow outline permission to be granted. There would, however, be the need for additional and updated surveys to be carried out and the findings acted upon before and development could be carried out.

English Nature has been consulted on the latest landscaping information and it is hoped that these revisions will overcome its concerns about the badger protection.

5. Other Environmental Issues

The EIA has addressed a number of other potential environmental effects and made recommendations about how issues work and ground contamination or noise arising from the redevelopment can be addressed. Subject to appropriate conditions, both the Environment Agency and the Council’s Environmental Health Officers are generally satisfied with the proposals. Officers are awaiting further comments from the Environment Agency on one issue. English Nature had raised a potential concern about the discharge into the ditch that runs into the River Wey. However, it indicated that if this point had been agreed with the Environment Agency then it would be happy to comply with what it has advised. Officers are awaiting the further comments from the Environment Agency on this specific point.


Officers Conclusions

Subject to the further views of the Environment Agency, officers are satisfied that outline permission can be granted subject to conditions and appropriate legal agreements.

Consideration by the Sub-Committee

The application was considered by the Sub-Committee at its meeting on 4th December. Your Sub-Committee generally endorsed the officers’ report and recommendations. However, in agreeing the resolution to refer the matter to the Development Control Committee, the Sub-Committee requested that the officers give further consideration to the following matters:-

1. The location within the site of the ‘bad neighbour’ uses;

2. Relocation of the access point;

3. Hopper bus alternatives; and

4. Interim park and ride opportunities.

Further discussions have taken place with the applicants on these points. With regard to the first point, the applicant’s agent has identified various reasons why the bad neighbour uses are where they are. Firstly, this is the area where these uses have been concentrated. Secondly, the eastern end has a greater depth of fill and it is more economical to use that end for bad neighbour developments where at most buildings would be of a ‘shed type’. Thirdly, the agent points out that the western end is enclosed to a greater extent by banks and screening and it makes sense, therefore, to erect taller buildings at that end. Finally, it has always been intended that the ‘bad neighbour’ area would be available on implementation of the planning permission. Given the intention to phase development, if the bad neighbour uses were at the western end they would be unlikely to be developed for a considerable time. Your officers endorse these points. It is considered that in all the circumstances the proposed location for the ‘bad neighbour’ uses is the most suitable.

Turning to the second point, your Sub-Committee did ask whether it was possible to move the access west (i. e further away from Coxbridge Roundabout). The agent has identified various reasons why this would not be appropriate. There would be an increased problem with levels and a potential effect on the protected badger area. In safety terms if the access is further west then the speed of vehicles that have exited Coxbridge Roundabout is likely to be greater with an increased danger of accidents. Finally, if the access is further west, the visibility to the west is much reduced because of the brow of the hill. Again, officers endorse these points.

On the third point, the agent states that in relation to the bus service, it is envisaged that this would be a public service but the details will need to be resolved and subject to further consultation both with the County Council and the bus operator, Stagecoach.

Officers understand that there are a number of practical difficulties in securing a ‘park and ride’ facility on the site as an interim use. Officers continue to explore this matter and will report further at the meeting.


The Sub-Committee also asked that the report to the Development Control Committee should include reference to vehicle movements/occupancy levels. These are now incorporated in the body of this report.

RECOMMENDS that

5. subject to the further views of the Environment Agency and subject to the applicant first entering into an appropriate legal agreement within six months, the costs of which are to be borne by the applicant, to secure:-

1. On occupation of 101 employees on site, excluding the bad neighbour uses and the Business Centre, a contribution of four hundred and fifty thousand pounds (450,000) at today’s prices over four years (one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred pounds per year) towards a bus service to serve the development site from the railway station and town centre.

2. On occupation of the first new buildings on site, a contribution of thirty-seven thousand one hundred pounds (37,100) at today’s prices towards upgrading of existing bus stops infrastructure between the site and the town centre together with an additional payment of one thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds (1,750) at today’s prices for maintenance of bus shelters.

3. The closure of existing access points to the site and provision of a new access point together with improvements to the adjacent highway all as generally shown on drawing number E559/01/Rev B.

4. The provision of a pedestrian/cycle link along the frontage of the A31 Coxbridge roundabout all as generally shown on drawing number 1565/20.

5. The production of individual travel plans in accordance with the agreed Head of Terms to be submitted with each detailed application;

then permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. Standard Outline (1.2)*(siting) (design) (external appearance of the buildings) (means of access thereto other than the new site entrance and off-site highway works detailed in the outline application) and detailed landscaping of the site. In particular the precise height of any building shall only be determined as part of the design considerations and nothing in this permission shall be interpreted or be construed as granting planning permission relating to the height of any building on the site.

2. Standard time limit (1.3)

3. Standard levels (outline) (4.1)

4. The enterprise centre shall be no less than 2000 sq.m gross floorspace and shall be completed and available for occupation prior to the occupation of any other part of the development hereby permitted.

5. The enterprise centre shall be used for purposes within Class B1 and/or Class B8 of the Town and Country Planning Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

6. Before the use hereby commences appropriate access and services shall be provided to the area reserved for ‘bad neighbour’ development.

7. Before development is commenced, additional ecological surveys shall be carried out in respect of protected species (bat/badgers) together with surveys in respect of reptiles, flora and ground nesting birds. The surveys shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority before development commences and any recommendations contained therein when agreed shall be followed.

8. The recommendations and mitigation issues contained within the existing ecological survey information accompanying the application shall be carried out prior to the commencement of development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. The development hereby permitted shall be contained within the area identified on the Landscape Strategy Drawing LA/L/25 Revision E.

10. No development shall commence until details of the planting proposals indicated generally on the Landscape Strategy Drawing LA/L/25 Revision E have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape works shall be implemented prior to commencement of any part of the approved development.

11. A Landscape Management Plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped areas shown on the approved Landscape Strategy Drawing shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any part of the development hereby approved.

12. No development shall commence until details have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority for the phasing of the proposed development. The development shall be carried out in direct accordance with the phasing details when agreed.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development (hereby permitted):

(a) a site investigation shall be carried out by an appropriate person to determine the nature and extent of any contamination associated with the former filling station. The investigation shall be carried out in accordance with a protocol, which shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

(b) a written report of the site investigation shall be prepared by an appropriate person. The report shall include the investigation results and details of a remediation scheme to contain, treat or remove any contamination, as appropriate. The report shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

(c) the approved remediation scheme shall be fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the relevant phase, as appropriate); and

(d) a completion report and certification of completion shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority by an appropriate person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and the site is suitable for the permitted end use.

14. The recommended remediation scheme outlined in document ref CG/1107 (Geotechnical Interpretive Report, Coxbridge Estate, Alton Road, Farnham. Card Geotechnics. March 2002) shall be fully implemented (either in relation to the development as a whole, or the relevant phase, as appropriate. A completion report and certification of completion shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority by an appropriate person stating that remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved remediation scheme and the site is suitable for the permitted end use.

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

16. No soakaways shall be constructed such that they penetrate the water table, and they shall not in any event exceed 3 metres in depth below existing ground level.

17. No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated ground.

18. The industrial and commercial development shall not exceed 18,000 sq.m gross floor area (measured externally) excluding the land reserved for sui generis (bad neighbour) uses.

19. The permission shall not be implemented until the existing access points are closed and the proposed vehicular access to the A31 Alton Road has been designed, constructed and provided with visibility zones in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction.

20. The permission shall not be implemented until the proposed pedestrian/cycle link along the frontage of the A31 Coxbridge roundabout has been designed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority.

21. The development shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority for cars/cycles to be parked and for the loading and unloading of vehicles.

22. No development shall take place until a Method of Construction Statement, to include details of:
a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
b) loading and unloading of plant and materials
c) storage of plant and materials
d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management)
e) provision of boundary hoarding
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

23. Before any of the operations which involve the movement of materials in bulk to or from the site are commenced, facilities shall be provided as must be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, in order that the operator can make all reasonable efforts to keep the public highway clean and prevent the creation of a dangerous surface on the public highway. The agreed measures shall thereafter be retained and used whenever the said operations are carried out.

24. Before the first and each subsequent occupation of the premises, the subject of the application, a Travel Plan, in accordance with the agreed Head of Terms, the aims and objectives of PPG13 (March 2001) and the Government White Paper (July 1998), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the Highway Authority. This shall be implemented in accordance with the details to be submitted and thereafter retained and developed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

25. No development shall take place until details to the Highway Authority’s specification have been submitted and agreed for the provision of badger tunnels under the A31. Such tunnels when agreed shall be provided before the development commences.

26. No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until:

(a) a site investigation has been undertaken in the location of the identified Petrol Filling station identified at the site and it’s surrounding area.

(b) upon the results obtained from the site investigation, a risk assessment shall be prepared to assess the risk to controlled water any contaminants identified may present.

(c) a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the site investigation has been submitted to the LPA. This will need to be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out.

(d) development of the site will be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement.

27. No development approved by this planning permission shall be commenced until:

(a) a site investigation has been undertaken to assess quantitatively the contaminative status of the ground water underlying the site. Particular attention should be paid to the western area of the site where a former landfill is known by the Environment Agency to exist.

(b) upon the results obtained from the site investigation, a risk assessment shall be prepared to assess the risk to controlled waters any contaminants identified may present.

(c) a Method Statement detailing the remediation requirements, including measures to minimise the impact on ground and surface waters, using the information obtained from the Site Investigation has been submitted to the LPA. This will need to be approved in writing by the LPA prior to that remediation being carried out.

(d) development of the site will be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement.

28. Upon completion of the remediation detailed in the Method Statements a report shall be submitted to the LPA that provides verification that the required works regarding contamination have been carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statements. Post remediation sampling and monitoring results shall be included in the report to demonstrate that the required remediation has been fully met.

Reasons:-

1. Standard (RC2).
2. Standard (RC2).
3. Standard (RC4) *(the character and amenity of the area and to ensure the proper development of the site) *(PE7) *(SE6) *(D1, D4, C3, C7 and IC7)..

4.-6. In order to comply with Policy IC7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

7.-8. Standard (RC18).

9.-11. In order to comply with Policy IC7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

12. To ensure the proper phasing of the development through the Local Plan period in accordance with Policy K7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan and accompanying text.

13-14. To ensure that any contamination of the site is properly dealt with to avoid any hazard, in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

15. To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

16.-17. To prevent pollution of ground water in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan.

18. Having regard to the environmental information supporting the application, and in order to comply with Policy IC7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

19.-23. In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety, nor cause inconvenience to other highway users and in order to satisfy Surrey Structure Plan (1994) Policies MT2 (The Movement Implications of Development) and MT5 (Provision of Off-Street Parking) and Policies DN2 (Movement Implications of Development) and DN3 (Parking Provision) of the Deposit Draft (2001) and Waverley Local Plan (2002) Policies M2 and M14.

24. Having regard to Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 and in order to satisfy Surrey Structure Plan (1994) Policies MT2 (The Movement Implications of Development) and MT5 (Provision of Off-Street Parking) and Policies DN2 (Movement Implications of Development) and DN3 (Parking Provision) of the Deposit Draft (2001) and Waverley Local Plan (2002) Policies M2 and M14.

25. Std (RC18)

26- 27 To adequately assess the risk that site contaminants may present to controlled waters and to adopt appropriate remedial measures in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan.

28. To protect controlled waters by ensuring that the remediated site has been reclaimed to a suitable standard in accordance with Policy D1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002.

Informatives

2. Having regard to the requirements of Policy IC7 that the development shall not intrude over the embankments around the site, the Local Planning Authority expects that the detailed plans pursuant to this permission will give careful attention to the height and potential visual impact of each building taking into account both near and distant views.

3. Design standards for the layout of access roads and junctions, including the provision of visibility zones, shall be in accordance with the requirements of the County Highway Authority.

4. Details of the highway requirements necessary for inclusion in any application seeking approval of reserved matters may be obtained from the Transportation Development Control Division of Surrey County Council.

5. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to obstruct the public highway by the erection of scaffolding, hoarding or any other device or apparatus for which a licence must be sought from the Highway Authority.

6. The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out works on the highway. The applicant is advised that a licence must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming part of the highway.

7. When a temporary access is approved or an access is to be closed as a condition of planning permission an agreement with, or licence issued by, the Highway Authority will require that the redundant dropped kerb be raised and any verge or footway crossing be reinstated to conform with the existing adjoining surfaces at the developers expense. (Note: It is preferable where possible to arrange for the adjacent highway to be included in the area edged red on the application when Circular 11/95 provides that conditions may be suitable to control this).

8. 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).

9. A pedestrian inter-visibility splay of 2m by 2m shall be provided on each side of the access, the depth measured from the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of the access. No fence, wall or other obstruction to visibility between 0.6m and 2m in height above ground level shall be erected within the area of such splays; and

In respect of this application, your Sub-Committee also

RECOMMENDS that

6. the following statement setting out the reasons for the decision be agreed:-

The Council has carefully assessed the information contained in the Environmental Statement and is satisfied that any potentially adverse environmental effects will be mitigated both by the remediation measures proposed in the Statement and by the various matters addressed in the legal agreements and conditions that are to be attached to the planning permission.

The main considerations on which the decision is based are as follows:-

1. The site is allocated for employment purposes in the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and the Council is satisfied that the proposal complies with the relevant Policy (Policy IC7);

2. The Council is satisfied from the illustrative material supplied and the information accompanying the Transportation Assessment that a development of the magnitude envisaged can be accommodated on site without harmful environmental effects arising either from its visual impact or the traffic generated. Furthermore, the Council is satisfied that potential effects of traffic will be further mitigated by measures proposed to deal with both improvements in public transport and the provision of travel plans.

3. The Council is satisfied that the ecological interest of the site, including the requirement to safeguard protected species will be adequately addressed by both measures already proposed and further measures dealt with by way of condition.

4. The Council is satisfied that any potential ground contamination will be addressed by remediation measures already proposed and those to be dealt with by way of condition.

A.2WA02/1332
Alliance and Leicester Plc
16.07.02
Alterations to access on land to the rear 20 – 21 The Borough, Farnham (as amplified and amended by letter and plans date stamped 26th September 2002)
Grid Reference:E: 484051 N: 146978
Town:Farnham
Ward:Castle
Development Plan:Conservation Area; Site of High Archaeological potential; Town Centre and Central Shopping Area. Section 52 Agreement
Highway Authority:Recommends conditions
Drainage Authority:No requirements
Town Council:Very concerned that the new entrance is too close to the junction of the Woolmead, The Borough and South Street and when cars turn left out of the Borough they will soon be upon this entrance.

Relevant History

The most relevant planning history refers to

WA89/2136Change of use of part of number 21 from retail to financial and professional services, installation of new shop fronts and erection of rear extension following demolition of part of rear extensionPermitted
21.02.90
Section 52
Agreement

Description of Site/Background

This application relates to an area of land to the rear of 20 and 21 The Borough. The site lies on the western side of Bear Lane close to the access to St George’s Yard. The site lies within the Conservation Area of Farnham.

The Proposal

This proposal involves providing an extended dropped curve to the access from land to the rear of 20 and 21 The Borough onto Bear Lane.

Submissions in Support

In a supporting letter accompanying the application the agent indicates that whilst there is already a drop kerb to the existing parking area, the additional section is required on the grounds of highway safety. Furthermore, in relation to the issue of the Section 52 Agreement the agents further state that whilst aware that in 1989 it was considered appropriate to try to close off the existing access onto Bear Lane on the grounds of highway safety this has since not been an issue. It is further indicated that the additional section of dropped kerb will be used as an exit point only for vehicles leaving the site in a forward gear.

Relevant Policies

Policies MT2 of the Surrey Structure Plan 1994

Policies M2, D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002

Main Planning Issues

- Highway Safety Implications of the extending the access and facilitating its use;

- Implications for the potential pedestrianisation plans for East Street;

- Implications for the Section 52 Legal Agreement (under reference WA89/2136).

In 1990 planning permission was granted for a comprehensive form of development of 20/21 The Borough (WA89/2136 refers). The permission was granted subject to a Section 52 Agreement to secure, inter alia, the relinquishment of the use of the Bear Lane access by the occupiers of 20/21 The Borough. It appears that the occupiers of numbers 18/19 The Borough also had access rights, and the developers were to use their "best endeavours" to obtain the release of the right of way enjoyed by those occupiers. Clause 2 of the legal Agreement requires the relinquishment of the access.

In considering the highway safety implications of the proposal, officers have taken into account the intention as part of the proposals to pedestrian East Street to introduce 2-way traffic on the Bear Lane/Woolmead loop. The Planning Brief adopted by the Council on 9th February 2000 is clearly a material consideration, although the final details for the new traffic flows have not been agreed and therefore the ‘Brief’ can only be given limited weight. Notwithstanding the fact that the pedestrianisation scheme is not finalized, the Highway Authority, and your officers do not consider that the proposals would be put in jeopardy by permission being granted for the current application.

The officers’ recommendation was as follows:-

That the Development Control Committee be recommended that, subject to the satisfactory variation to the legal agreement to remove the clause to relinquish the use of the access onto Bear Lane (the Council’s legal costs to be borne by the applicant), then planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:-

1. The proposed modified vehicular access to Bear Lane shall be redesigned/constructed and provided, in accordance with the approved plans or a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Prior to the commencement of development or first use of the access here by approved the applicant shall install ‘no entry’ signs at the entrance to ensure that the access is only used by vehicles existing the site in a forward gear on to Bear Lane. The signs shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in association with the Highways Authority.

Reasons

1 & 2. Standard HR1

Informative

Standard highways (HF13)

Consideration by the Sub-Committee

Your Sub-Committee did not, however, agree with the recommendation of the officers. It considered that serious concerns remained in respect of highway safety if the terms of the 1990 legal agreement were relaxed. It was informed that the applicant had not been in control of the land in question in order to implement this aspect of the legal agreement, although the gates had been kept closed in the intervening period. It was noted that, without a variation to the legal agreement to allow access from Bear Lane to the site, the logical consequence would be that the planning application, as submitted, could not be granted.

Your Sub-Committee accordingly

RECOMMENDS that

7. the legal agreement in respect of application WA89/2136 be not varied and the applicant be informed that, as a consequence, the application be refused for the following reasons:-

1. These are concerns regarding highway safety and longer term considerations arising from the ongoing East Street regeneration proposals.

Background Papers (DoP&D)

There are no background papers (as defined by Section 100D(5) of the Local Government Act 1972) relating to these reports.

PART II – Matters reported in detail for the information of the Committee

There are no matters falling within this category.

PART III - Brief Summaries of Other Matters Dealt With

Background Papers

The background papers relating to the following report items are as specified in the agenda for the meetings of Western Area Development Control Sub-Committee.

B. PLANNING APPEALS

B.1 Appeals Lodged
WA01/2059Extension to provide meeting room and ancillary facilities at Tilford Parish Church, Tilford Road, Tilford
WA01/2260Certificate of Lawfulness at Coach House, Lake Lane, Dockenfield, Farnham
WA02/004TGPDO Part 24 : Siting of an eight metre high telegraph pole style telecommunications mast and equipment cabin on land at Marston Road

B.2 Appeal Decisions
B.3 Inquiry Arrangements

Your Sub-Committee has noted Public Inquiry arrangements for its planning appeals.


C. ENFORCEMENT ACTION

C.1 Current Situation

Your Sub-Committee has noted reports on the current situation regarding enforcement and related action previously authorised.

C.2 Land at Bourne Mill, Guildford Road, Farnham

Your Sub-Committee has considered a report on this matter and has agreed to seek early compliance with Enforcement Notices currently in existence. Failing such compliance by 15th March 2003, the Sub-Committee has authorised initiation of prosecution in relation to the Enforcement Notices.
comms/western development control/2002-03/065