Agenda Update Sheet. Planning Committee A

Transcription

1 Agenda Update Sheet Planning Committee A Date: 22 nd June 2017

2 Agenda Section 5: Applications Part I Recommended for Approval ITEM: 1 DM/16/5502 Summary of Consultees Surrey County Council No objection subject to an archaeological condition. Tandridge District Council Tandridge Council are taking a precautionary approach (as the highways issue remains unclear) and as such continue to object to the application. Drainage Officer Suggest conditions regarding surface and foul water drainage P16, under application details, correct mix to 6 x 2 bed houses (affordable for rent) 6 x 3 bed houses (two affordable for shared ownership) 7 x 4 bed houses. 7 x 5 bed houses P18 Delete reference to Policy DP1 P29 under the first paragraph add the following paragraph The proposed development was modelled in the Mid Sussex Transport Study (Updated Transport Analysis) as a committed scheme such that its potential effects are incorporated into the overall results of the transport model, which indicates there would not be an overall impact on Ashdown Forest. This means there is not considered to be a significant in combination effect on the Ashdown Forest SAC by this development proposal. Add an additional condition 14 (and renumber later conditions accordingly) regarding SAMM to read No development shall take place until a scheme for the mitigation of the effects of the development on the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall either make provision for the delivery of a bespoke Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) or make provision for the payment of an appropriate financial sum towards the maintenance and operation of a SANG leased and operated by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that the scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority is for the physical provision of a SANG, no dwelling shall be occupied before written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority that the SANG has been provided in accordance with the approved scheme. In the event that the scheme approved by the Local Planning Authority does not

3 relate to the physical provision of a SANG, no development shall take place before written confirmation has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority that the financial sum has been provided in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: To ensure that the development, either on its own or in combination with other plans or projects, does not have a likely significant effect on a European site within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations Add an informative to read: The applicant is advised that to satisfy condition 14 above there are likely to be two options. The first is to provide, lay out and ensure the maintenance of, in perpetuity, of a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Any potential sites for SANG will need to meet Natural England s guidelines for SANGs and the suitability of a potential site for SANG will be considered on a site specific basis. The achievement of a SANG is likely to be through the mechanism of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended. The second is to enter a form of agreement with the Local Planning Authority pursuant to Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 and such other enabling powers in relation to the payment of an appropriate financial sum towards the Council s existing SANG by way of mitigation. The appropriate sum will be calculated in accordance with the latest policy currently the East Court & Ashplats Wood Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace Strategy October 2014 Add an informative to read: You are advised that as part of discharging condition 9 it will be a requirement that the Construction Management Plan specifies that no burning of demolition/construction waste shall take place on site. ITEM: 2 DM/17/0194 Ecologist: Based on the revised layout indicating that both hedgerow (H1) and hedgerow trees will not need to be removed for sightlines, I am satisfied that the proposal is compliant with relevant planning policies, subject to a condition to secure the details of compensation measures for the hedgerow gap that will be created for access (as outlined in the ecological appraisal by the Ash Partnership). Happy for this to be incorporated into a landscape condition with perhaps a note emphasising the need to address compensation for hedgerow gap. Conservation Officer Comments: Unit 1 Farmhouse The window material has been revised to timber, as per previous advice. This is welcomed

4 Units 2 and 3 Barns Although the projecting porch to Unit 3 is retained, contrary to advice, the amount of glazing and in particular the proliferation of French windows to both units has been reduced, which results in a design more in accordance with a contemporary interpretation of the agricultural vernacular. The substitution of post and rail fencing for close boarded fences also represents an enhancement of the scheme and its relationship with the rural setting. On balance therefore, given the above amendments and in light of the existing outline permission, the proposal as revised is considered to preserve (not to cause harm to) the setting of the nearby listed building. This meets the requirements of Local Plan Policy B10, emerging District Plan Policy DP32 and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF. I would suggest the following conditions: - Details including samples of facing and roofing materials - Detailed drawings at an appropriate large scale, including sections, and annotated to show materials and finishes, of typical examples of windows and external doors - All rooflights to be flush fitting metal framed conservation style rooflights - All rainwater goods and external stove flues to be of painted metal - Large scale drawings, annotated to show materials and finishes, of typical examples of boundary treatments - Details of new hard landscaping including materials WSCC Highways Additional Comments: I think you can do this in accordance with the CMP and adjust the wording. P.67 Condition 7 Delete: Condition 7 Replace with: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the Construction Management Plan submitted in relation to this application and dated the January Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area and to accord with and Policy T4 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and Policy DP19 of the Submission Draft District Plan ( ). P.68 Condition 9 Delete: No development shall take place Replace: No dwelling shall be occupied P.70 Add Condition:

5 13. The proposed roof lights hereby approved shall be flush fitting metal framed conservation style roof lights unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality and to accord with Policy B1 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan, Policy DP24 of the Submission District Plan and Policy TNP2 of the Neighbourhood Plan. P64 After the first paragraph add the following paragraph The proposed development has been assessed through the Mid Sussex Transport Study (Updated Transport Analysis) as windfall development, such that its potential effects are incorporated into the overall results of the transport model which indicates there would not be an overall impact on Ashdown Forest. Sufficient windfall capacity exists within the development area. This means there is not considered to be a significant in combination effect on the Ashdown Forest SAC by this development proposal. P71: Add informative: 5. The details of compensation measures for the hedgerow gap that will be created for access (as outlined in the ecological appraisal by the Ash Partnership). Should be submitted as part of the landscape condition No. 9. ITEM: 3 DM/17/0360 P80, P82, P.93 Delete reference to Policy DP1 P80, under recommendations, delete and SANG P81, under Application Details, replace outline consent with full planning permission P91, second paragraph down, replace the last sentence with the following Although the SAMM planning obligation has not yet been completed, the decision will not be issued until this is completed P91 after the second paragraph add the following paragraph The proposed development has been assessed through the Mid Sussex Transport Study (Updated Transport Analysis) as windfall development, such that its potential effects are incorporated into the overall results of the transport model which indicates there would not be an overall impact on Ashdown Forest. Sufficient windfall capacity exists within the development area. This means there is not considered to be a significant in combination effect on the Ashdown Forest SAC by this development proposal.

6 ITEM: 4 DM/17/1033 Summary of Consultees Ecologist In my opinion, there are no biodiversity policy reasons for refusal or amendment of the proposals, subject to the following conditions: The reserved matters application shall be supported with details of how the recommendations in the ecology report by Hone Ecology report V2, dated 21 February 2017 will be incorporated. The approved details shall be implemented in full unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: to ensure that the proposals avoid adverse impacts on protected and priority species and contribute to a net gain in biodiversity, in accordance with 109 and 118 of the NPPF. Comments The revised access arrangement to avoid creating a new gap in the hedgerow (which is Habitat of Principal Importance to which LPAs must have regard, even if it does not qualify as an Important Hedgerow under the 1997 Regs) are welcomed and reflect the requirements of the NPPF 118 to preferentially avoid impacts on biodiversity before considering mitigation and then, as a last resort, compensation. Representations 1 further letter of objection: -officers have incorrectly applied policy TNP1.1 since the Parish Vision shows no support for housing of green field sites -policy TNP1.1 is not just a housing policy but is an environmental policy because it allows development in appropriate circumstances P116, under the Heading Other Issues, add an additional paragraph to read The proposed development has been assessed through the Mid Sussex Transport Study (Updated Transport Analysis) as windfall development, such that its potential effects are incorporated into the overall results of the transport model which indicates there would not be an overall impact on Ashdown Forest. Sufficient windfall capacity exists within the

7 development area. This means there is not considered to be a significant in combination effect on the Ashdown Forest SAC by this development proposal. Replace condition 14 with the following No development shall take place until details of how the recommendations in the ecology report by Hone Ecology report V2, dated 21 February 2017 will be incorporated. The approved details shall be implemented in full unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposals avoid adverse impacts on protected and priority species and contribute to a net gain in biodiversity, in accordance with 109 and 118 of the NPPF and to comply with policy C5 of the Mid Sussex Local Plan and policy DP37 of the Mid Sussex District Plan Submission Version. DM/17/1110 P128 Delete: Cllr Peter Martin/ Cllr Kevin Burke Replace: Cllr Michelle Binks / Cllr Sue Hatton