item no: 7 ward: wildridings and central site address: land at …democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk...

Planning & Highways Committee 17th September 2009

ITEM NO: 7 Application No.

09/00392/FUL Ward:

Wildridings And Central Date Registered:

19 June 2009 Target Decision Date:

18 September 2009 Site Address: Land At 2A Woodridge Close Bracknell Berkshire Proposal: Erection of 2no. two storey buildings accommodating 9no. one

bedroom flats and 2no. two bedroom flats with associated parking, bin store and vehicular access from Woodridge Close following demolition of existing house.

Applicant: Mr Paul Cohen Agent: Davis Planning Case Officer: Natalie Brown, 01344 352000

[email protected]

Site Location Plan (for identification purposes only, not to scale)


1 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY (If Any) 06/00035/FUL Validation Date: 21.01.2006 Erection of two storey side extension Approved 07/01290/FUL Validation Date: 21.12.2007 Erection of 15no. 2 bedroom flats with associated car parking accessed from Woodridge Close following demolition of 6a The Ridgeway. Withdrawn 08/00338/FUL Validation Date: 08.04.2008 Erection of 14no. 2 bedroom flats with associated car parking (some serving 2A Woodbridge Close) accessed from Woodridge Close following demolition of 6a The Ridgeway. Refused 08/00732/FUL Validation Date: 31.07.2008 Erection of 1no. four bedroom house,following demolition of extension, erection of one block comprising 4no. one bedroom flats and a detached double gararge serving 2A Woodridge Close, with associated parking, bin store and access. Withdrawn 08/01015/FUL Validation Date: 07.11.2008 Erection of two storey building accommodating 4no. one bedroom flats with associated parking, bin store and vehicular access from Woodridge Close. Refused Appeal Validation Date: 21.07.2008 Reference:

08/00046/REF

Erection of 14no. 2 bedroom flats with associated car parking (some serving 2A Woodbridge Close) accessed from Woodridge Close following demolition of 6a The Ridgeway. Appeal Dismissed

Appeal Validation Date: 29.01.2009 Reference:

09/00003/REF

Erection of two storey building accommodating 4no. one bedroom flats with associated parking, bin store and vehicular access from Woodridge Close. Appeal Allowed

2 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES

Key to abbreviations SEP The South East Plan BFBCS Core Strategy Development Plan Document BFBLP Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan RMLP Replacement Minerals Local Plan WLP Waste Local Plan for Berkshire SPG Supplementary Planning Guidance SPD Supplementary Planning Document RSS Regional Spatial Strategy (also known as the South East Plan) PPG (No.) Planning Policy Guidance (Published by DCLG) PPS (No.) Planning Policy Statement (Published by DCLG) MPG Minerals Planning Guidance DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government


Note: The SEP and the BFBLP contain some policies with the same title, e.g. H3. In such cases, the policy will be suffixed with an “SEP” for the SEP and an “L” for the BFBLP, e.g. H3SEP, H3L.

Plan Policy Description (May be abbreviated)

BFBLP EN3L Nature Conservation

BFBLP EN20 Design Considerations In New Development

BFBLP EN22 Designing For Accessibility

BFBLP M4L Highway Measures New Development

BFBLP M9 Vehicle And Cycle Parking

BFBLP R5 Publicy Usable OS For Small Sites

BFBLP EN25 Noise And Other Pollution

BFBCS CS2 Locational Principles

BFBCS CS6 Limiting the Impact of Development

BFBCS CS7 Design

BFBCS CS8 Recreation and Culture

BFBCS CS10 Sustainable Resources

BFBCS CS12 Renewable Energy

BFBCS CS14 ThamesBasinHeaths SpecialProtectionArea

BFBCS CS24 Transport and New Development

PPG PPS1 Creating Sustainable Communities

PPG PPS3 Housing

SEP SC6 Sustainable Communities

SEP SC7 Infrastructure and Implementation

SEP H5 Housing Design

SEP T4 Parking

SEP NRM6 Thames Basin Heaths

SEP NRM10 Noise

SPD Parking

SPD Limiting the impact of Development

SPD Sustainable Resource Management


3 CONSULTATIONS

(Comments may be abbreviated) Natural England As there is an Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy in Bracknell Forest Council, we have no comments to make. Berkshire Archaeology Phased programme of archaeological works required. Environmental Policy Officer (SPA) SPA mitigation required Biodiversity Officer Bat survey required due to demolition of building. Landscape scheme also required. [Officer comment - these matters can be dealt with by way of conditions]. Tree Officer

(No comments received at time of producing this report). Environmental Health and Safety Control of environmental effects conditions required. Transportation Officer Access and vehicle movements acceptable in relation to highway safety. Concerns regarding level of cycle and parking provision. [Officer comment: also see subsequent comments on amended plans]. Bracknell Town Council Bracknell Town Council have commented as follows: Recommend Refusal - Overdevelopment, impact on infrastructure - open spaces, play areas, schools and transport. Out of keeping with the surrounding area due to height and mass 'an undesirable intrusion into this small quiet residential estate of mainly 2 storey detached houses'. Highway concerns over access and parking. By reasons of its layout and form the proposed development would be out of keeping with the surrounding pattern and form of development to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of the area. It is inevitable that allowing the construction of a number of small flats has the potential to change the nature of the existing environment and community. Transportation Officer (Re-consulted on amended plans) No objection subject to conditions (see full comments on file).


4 REPRESENTATIONS (a) Original Plans 26 letters of objection on grounds of: - Would be contrary to appeal decision for 14 flats - Appeal decision for 4 flats said no rooms in roof - Scale/Mass/Footprint of the 7 unit building is larger than the existing building and surrounding dwellings - The proposal is dominated by hard standing and turning, which was acknowledged by Planning Inspectorate as unacceptable - Rooms proposed in roof space of larger building - 66 dph out of keeping - Introduction of 1-bedroom units is out of character with family homes - Planning Inspectorate stated that efficient use of the use should not compromise the character and quality of the local environment - A separate building in the front garden of 2a Woodridge Close is inappropriate, no regard to building lines - Overbearing impact of the proposals - Loss of privacy - Noise levels - Impact upon trees - Impact upon infrastructure - Inadequate access - Increase in volume of traffic - Inadequate parking - Impact upon the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) - Requests a statement regarding the Character Area Assessment SPD consultation draft be included in any report [Officer comment: The impact of the proposal upon neighbouring properties and character of the area are addressed below. Comments have been made regarding impact upon local infrastructure and the SPA. These impacts could be mitigated through an appropriate legal agreement, which is set out below. Highway matters and previous history in relation to appeals are also addressed below. Comments have been made regarding restrictive covenants and party wall issues. These are not planning matters. Comments have been made regarding principle for flats and a building in the front garden of 2a being inappropriate, and 1-bedroom flats being out of character – this has been established in the granting of application 08/01015/FUL on appeal for 4 flats. In relation to the consultation draft of the Character Area Assessment, as emerging guidance, this can only be affordable limited weight, however has been taken into consideration (see below).] (b) Amended Plans 23 letters of objections on following grounds: - Reiterating previous comments that have been made - How can the ridge height of the proposed three-storey building be lower than the existing property - No decision should be taken until the a decision on the Character Area Assessment has been made


A number of letters also refer to the fact that in total (including appeals) there have been 8 applications on this site, all requiring detailed rebuttals from the residents, which in their view have totally disregarded maintaining the character and appearance that local residents have fought to maintain. They have also commented that it is quite unacceptable to subject local residents to the stress and demands on their time, from a constant barrage of applications. [Officer Comment: The Council cannot control the number and type of applications and appeals that may be submitted. The Council is duty bound to determine any application that is submitted and consider it.]

5 OFFICER REPORT

Summary Of Key Aspects Of The Proposal (If Any) The application is before the Planning and Highways Committee as the recommendation is for approval, and more than 3 objections have been received. SUMMARY OF KEY ASPECTS OF PROPOSAL Proposed site area (ha): 0.165ha Proposed number of parking spaces: 12 Proposed number of residential units: 11 (9 no. 1-bedroom and 2no. 2-bedroom) Proposed density (residential): 66dph i) PROPOSAL Erection of 2no. two storey buildings accommodating 9no. one bedroom flats and 2no. two bedroom flats with associated parking, bin store and vehicular access from Woodridge Close following demolition of existing house. Plots 1-4 would contain 4no, 1-bedroom units over 2 floors of accommodation. It would be 15.6m in length, 9.2m in depth (at widest part), 4.6m to the eaves, with the main ridge at 8m. One element of the proposal would be 8.8m to the ridge. Plots 5-11, would contain 3 floors of accommodation, containing the third floor within the roof space. The mix would be 5 no. 1-bedroom units and 2no. 2-bedroom units. It would result in a building of 20m in length, 11.6m in depth, 5.5m to the eaves and 9m to the ridge ii) SITE The site is located within a defined settlement area within a residential location on the edge of Bracknell Town Centre. To the north and east of the site are located residential properties. The site contains an existing dwelling within the current curtilage of 2a Woodridge Close, which would be demolished as part of the proposals. The site area comprises 0.165 hectares. iii) DEVELOPMENT PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Settlement Within 5km of TBH SPA iv) PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS (1) Environmental Impact Assessment


From the information provided, it is understood the project is of a type listed under Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999. With regard to the projects in Schedule 2, the description considered applicable is that under Item 10(b) – Urban Development Projects. The application has been screened, and having taken into account the details of the application and the regulations, the Council is of the opinion that the development proposed is not EIA development (also having regard to the indicative thresholds set out in paragraph A.19 of Circular 02/99, i.e. site area is less than 5ha). (2) Amended Plans Amended plans were received on 6 August 2009. The amended plans form the basis of the consideration of this application, and the amended plans resulted in the following changes: - Removal of roof terrace facing 6a The Ridgeway - Reduction in the number of velux windows - Relocation of parking away from boundary with 2 Woodridge Close and front of plots 5-11 - Additional cycle storage for plots 5-11 - Surfacing of driveway and parking area to be low noise material - New hedge planting and acoustic fencing along boundary with 2 Woodridge Close - Reduction of ridge height adjacent to 6a The Ridgeway - Change in mix of plots 5-11, now 5no. 1-bedroom and 2no. 2-bedroom (previously 4no. 1-bedroom and 3no. 2-bedroom) (3) Principle of Development The site is located within a defined settlement which establishes the principle for residential development in line with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy DPD. The principle of flats on part of the site has also been established in the granting (on appeal) of application 08/01015/FUL for 4 flats at 2a Woodridge Close. (4) Impact upon the character and appearance of the area In terms of the immediate surroundings, the area has a spacious feel with dwellings being predominantly detached in generous plots with mainly open plan frontages, as noted by Inspectors in dismissing appeals in relation to Woodhouse House and a larger scheme for flats encompassing 2a Woodridge Close and 6a The Ridgeway. In allowing a scheme for 4 flats at 2a Woodridge Close, the Inspector commented (para 4) that “the appeal site is in a residential area predominantly of detached dwellings in plots of reasonably generous size. The site is off the head of the cul-de-sac Woodridge Close, which has a somewhat more enclosed character than that of The Ridgeway into which it leads, with generally shallower front gardens. The slope downwards from The Ridgeway to the Close accentuates its more secluded sense of place. No. 2A and No. 6A to the west, differ from others in the immediate area in having plots considerably larger than most.” (a) Relevant background in relation to character There are 2 appeal decisions relating to this site which are a material consideration: An application for 14 flats covering 2a Woodridge Close and 6a The Ridgeway, which was dismissed on appeal (application 08/00338/FUL refers).


An application for 4 flats in the garden of 2a Woodridge Close (also part of current application), which was allowed on appeal (application 08/01015/FUL refers). There has also been approval for a two-storey side extension to 2a Woodridge Close (application 06/00035/FUL refers). Whilst this application time expired in March 2009, nevertheless, it is a relevant material consideration as to what has been deemed acceptable by the Council in the recent past. (b) Policy context PPS3 advises that reflecting policy in PPS1, good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted. Policy EN20 of the BFBLP relates to design considerations in new development, and requires proposals to be in sympathy with the appearance and character of the local environment and appropriate in scale, mass, design, materials and siting both in themselves and in relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views. Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy DPD relates to design, and amongst other things requires development to build on local character, respecting local patterns of development. Policy CC6 of the South East Plan seeks development that will respect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design to create a high quality built environment which promotes a sense of place and policy H5 seeks positive measures to raise the quality of new housing, reduce its environmental impact, and make good use of land. The Council has also published a draft Character Area Assessment Supplementary Planning Document. This is at a consultation stage, and therefore can only be afforded limited weight. A number of local residents have stated that no decision should be made until the consultation period has ended/the document has been adopted. This is not feasible. As with any application, both current and emerging policies/guidance are taken into consideration, and a decision cannot be delayed until emerging policies/guidance are in adopted form rather than draft form. The application site lies within Character Area Bi within the Bracknell chapter of the draft SPD. (c) Principle of flats The site is located within a defined settlement and existing residential area close to the Town Centre. The principle of flats on part of the site has been established in the granting of 4 flats on appeal (application 08/01015/FUL refers). In allowing the appeal for 4 flats, the Inspector commented (para 5) that “I see no reason in principle why a development of flats, of appropriate scale, could not be acceptable in the area”. The scale of the flats, in relation to this application is considered below. A number of letters of representation have been received regarding the proposed density of the flats, and this being greater than the dismissed scheme of 14 flats. Being located close to the town centre, in a sustainable location, a density of 66dph is not considered to be inappropriate. However, consideration of how the proposed flats would impact upon the character and appearance of the area has to be considered, and whether this amounts to overdevelopment, which is set out below. The draft


Character Area Assessment SPD does not advise that flats would be inappropriate in this location. (d) Design, bulk and mass of the proposals The design, bulk and mass of the building on Plots 1-4 has already been established in the granting of an appeal relating to application 08/01015/FUL. Therefore no objection is raised to Plots 1-4 in this regard. In terms of Plots 5-11, the proposal would result in a building of 20m in length, 11.6m in depth, 5.5m to the eaves and 9m to the ridge. This compares to the existing dwelling of 19m length in total (11.8m at two-storey level), 9m in depth and 9.5m to the ridge, as shown on the ‘Street scene plots 5-11’, drawing 08-P405-50A. (NB. scaling off of microfiched plans for application 06/00035/FUL, the ridge for the existing dwelling has been shown at the correct height on the street scene elevation). A two-storey side extension has also been permitted at No. 2a, on the side adjacent to 6a The Ridgeway (application 06/00035/FUL). This has established that it is acceptable in principle to permit a building over 9m in height across the plot width. The proposed flats would be comparable to the permitted extension in terms of height and bulk. In fact, the proposed flats in lowering the ridge height adjacent to 6a (through amended plans) would have a lesser bulk and mass compared to the permitted extension. Whilst this extension can no longer be implemented, having time expired in March 2009, it is not considered that there have been any material changes in circumstance that would warrant refusal on bulk and mass grounds. Whilst the SEP has been adopted since the consideration of the extension scheme, it is not considered that the current proposal, in terms of its design, bulk and mass would conflict with Development Plan Policies, nor would it conflict with the emerging Character Area Assessments SPD, in this regard. Comments have been received regarding the fact that the proposal for flats would be in conflict with the Inspector’s comments in dismissing a larger 14 unit scheme. The 14 unit scheme was considered to be out of character in terms of an unduly large and dominant building, in the context of its surroundings. There are marked differences between the size and scale of the 14 unit scheme which was spread over 2 plots compared to the current proposal for flats at 2a, and would not be of a comparable scale of building. In dismissing the scheme for 14 units, the Inspector commented that the proposal would not reflect the pattern of development. The current scheme, in terms of Plots 5-11 would occupy a similar footprint to the existing dwelling on site. Comments have been made regarding how a three-storey building can be of a lower ridge height than the existing two-storey property. The proposed flats (plots 5-11) would contain 3 floors of accommodation, however the third floor of accommodation would be located within the roof space, rather than 3 floors with a roof on top. There are no restrictions relating to minimum floor heights (other than heights above stair cases). The acceptability of this point would be considered through Building Regulations. Scaled plans have been submitted, which show a building of 9m in height, and it is on this basis that the plans have been assessed, and for the reasons outlined above, the height and bulk are considered acceptable. As scaled plans have been submitted (which is normal practice), it is not considered necessary to also include a condition to restrict the height to 9m. As with any application, if approved, a condition is included to require the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans, so a further condition would be duplication. If a building is not built in accordance with the approve drawings then a breach of planning control has occurred. The Council, as Local Planning Authority, has enforcement powers if such situations


arise. It is also normal practice for a condition to be imposed on any planning permission requiring details of the proposed finished floor levels of the building, in relation to a fixed datum point, to be submitted for approval and for the development to be built in accordance with the approved levels. This avoids situations where the building shown on the approved drawings is built on a slab which itself projects above normal ground level. Comments have also been made by local residents regarding proposed rooms within the roof space. The proposal would contain dormer windows in the front elevation. Woodridge House, a converted property within the close, also contains dormer windows within the roof space, and so this element in its own right is not considered to be either out of keeping with the character of the proposed building, or wider character of the area. Furthermore, the draft SPD does not make any comments regarding dormer windows being inappropriate development in this location. Local residents have also commented that the Inspector, in allowing the appeal for 4 flats made reference to ‘no rooms in the roof’. In reading para. 6 of the appeal statement, the Inspector is describing the proposed flats rather than stating rooms within the roof would be unacceptable in this location. (e) Layout and amount of development proposed on the site In allowing the appeal for 4 flats, the Inspector specifically commented (para. 6) that the subdivision of the appeal site would still leave plots for 2a and for the flats larger than most in the vicinity, and sufficient space would be remain around the proposed building and host dwelling to retain an effective setting for both properties including a sufficient area of front garden for the flats. Whilst the proposal to demolish the existing host dwelling and replace with flats would result in this space being communal rather than a single family property, the amount of space is considered to be sufficient for future occupiers, and would retain a setting for both buildings. The space would be useable and accessible, and therefore accord with the supporting text of policy EN20. Concerns were raised regarding the proximity of parking to the front of plots 5-11 and side boundaries with other neighbouring properties. The applicant submitted amended plans to try and address this issue. This has resulted in some reduction in the amenity space for Plots 1-4 (south of the parking area), however, additional amenity space not proposed by the separate 4 units scheme (08/01015/FUL) is now included (to the west of the parking spaces), which is considered to off-set the reduction to the south. It is not considered that the proposed scheme would conflict with the Inspector’s appeal decision in relation to the 4 unit scheme. The proposal would include a landscaped area to the Plots 1-4 (which is in line with the appeal scheme for the 4 flats). The layout is considered acceptable, and would not result in an overdevelopment of the site. It would be in accordance with development plan policies, and not conflict with previous appeal decisions. (f) Loss of Trees A number of comments have been made regarding loss of trees. Plots 1-4 would result in some loss of trees through pedestrian access onto Bagshot Road and location of parking. The principle of 4 flats adjacent to Bagshot Road has been established in the granting of a previous appeal. In dismissing a scheme for 14 units, on a larger site area, the Inspector did not raise any concerns in relation to tree loss. A condition requiring details of landscaping to be submitted will be required.


(5) Impact upon neighbour residential amenities (a) Future Occupiers A noise survey has been submitted with the application. Provided the development is carried out in accordance with the noise mitigation proposed, the development would be acceptable in relation to future occupiers amenities. (b) Existing Properties There may be potential for noise disturbance during demolition of the existing dwelling and during building. These matters could be dealt with by way of a Working Method Statement condition requiring details of control of noise; control of dust, smell and other effluvia; control of surface water run off; site security arrangements including hoardings; proposed method of piling for foundations; construction and demolition working hours; hours during the construction and demolition phase, when delivery vehicles or vehicles taking materials are allowed to enter or leave the site. The location and layout of plots 1-4 have been established in the granting of application 08/01015/FUL (at appeal), and this would not be changed with the proposed scheme. Therefore, the impact of plots 1-4 upon existing residential properties is considered acceptable. In relation to plots 5-11, in their design and access statement, the applicant has set out that the total amount of hard standing would be reduced compared to the existing property. However, this space would be used differently, with increased vehicle movements compared to that which could be expected with a single family dwelling, and so there would be an increased potential for noise and disturbance. Amended plans have sought to relocate the parking further from the most affected property (2 Woodridge Close), and provide acoustic fencing alongside No, 2 and provide a low noise surface in order to mitigate future impacts. Proposed planting is proposed to the rear of the parking areas, and the parking areas would be set in from the side boundaries with existing neighbouring properties (2m from the boundary with 2 Woodridge Close, and 6m from the boundary with 6a The Ridgeway). This is considered to be acceptable, and the requirement for a 2m high acoustic fence along the boundary with No. 2 and No.6a could be conditioned. Environmental Health did not raise an objection to the plans as originally submitted, and the amended plans would result in an improvement. The proposed flats have the potential to result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. Amended plans were submitted removing a proposed roof terrace facing 6a The Ridgeway and reducing the number of velux windows in the roof space. Two velux windows (to serve a living room) are shown in the roof space facing 2 Woodridge Close, which could be conditioned to be 1.8m above the internal floor level. The dormer windows in the front elevation would serve a bedroom and living room, and are set in from the side of the building. Views from these windows would be at an oblique angle, and therefore are not considered to result in an overlooking issue to warrant refusal of the application. Habitable room windows are also shown in the front and rear elevation at first floor level, which would serve habitable rooms. However, this would be comparable to the existing dwelling, and so it is not considered that there would be any overlooking issues to warrant refusal of the application. It is not considered that the proposal (plots 5-11) would result in any unacceptable overshadowing or overbearing impacts that would result in refusal of the application,


with appropriate separation distances from existing properties. It would be located the following distances from properties: 9.6m from the side of Plots 1-4 4m from the side of 2 Woodridge Close 41m from the front of 4 Woodridge Close 4.4m from the side of 6a The Ridgeway 33.6m from the rear of 8 The Ridgeway 32.4m from the rear of 10 The Ridgeway 33m from the rear of 12 The Ridgeway 30.8m from the rear of 14 The Ridgeway The separation distances are comparable to the larger 14 unit flatted scheme (08/00338/FUL). In dismissing the appeal for the 14 flats, the Inspector considered (para.21) that the relationship and distance between the flats and neighbouring properties was such that it would ensure the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of any neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light or visual intrusion. (6) Transport Considerations (a) Parking In order to comply with the Council's parking standards, the following would be required; 2 spaces per 2-bed unit, 1 space per 1 bed-unit and 2 visitor spaces per every 5 units. This would equate to 15 spaces. The change in mix to provide 5no.1 bed units and 2no. 2 bed units in plots 5-11 has reduced the parking requirement, compared with the application as submitted, in total 12 spaces are proposed for the whole development. Effectively the northern block has 8 spaces, 5 for the 1-bed units and 3 for 2 bed-units, (this equates to 1.5 spaces per unit for the 2-bedroom units). The level of provision for 2 bed units is similar to other schemes in the area and only slightly less than the ratio for the 14 flat scheme that was dismissed at appeal. There is no separate provision for visitors. In light of this and the need to maximise parking use, the number of spaces on site is considered to be acceptable, however, only on the basis that the spaces are communal, which would be dealt with by way of an appropriate condition. It is still likely that residents to each block would want to park in front of their building but with this condition, flexibility would be possible if the car park is busy. Several letters of objection have been received in relation to there not being enough parking. It should be noted that in dismissing the scheme for 14 flats (08/00338/FUL), the Inspector considered that a reduction in the parking standards (paras. 16-19) would not be unacceptable, and the use of a communal spaces rather than spaces being allocated to individual flats would maximise the use of spaces, providing a flexible approach. The Inspector did not consider that a reduction in parking would result in significant levels of on-street carking in the surrounding area, or to have an unacceptable impact in terms of highway safety. The supporting text to Policy M9 of the BFBLP advises there are circumstances which a more flexible approach to parking standards is justified. It is considered that the proposal in terms of parking provision would not be in conflict with this policy.


In respect of the plans the reversing distance behind spaces 1 and 2 is not 6m and this should be altered to provide this distance. A condition relating to access details to be agreed prior to development could cover this. In terms of the cycle parking, the overall numbers required will change as the mix has changed. Minor alterations to the bin/cycle store (moving internal walls and providing additional doors) could be made to provide the cycle parking in one area and this would not require a new store in front of the building. A single ‘Sheffield’ type stand outside the cycle store to cater for visitors is also required. These matters could be dealt with by an appropriate condition. (b) Access The site is located on the residential road of Woodridge Close, which is subject to a 30mph speed limit. There are parking restrictions along the length of the close to restrict commuter parking. It is anticipated that speeds will be nearer 20 mph near to the site as the site is located near to the end of the road and is access via a turning head. The access to the site is via a turning head and the road width is 4.1m, this is sufficient to cater for the proposed level of development. The details of the exact works to the access will be dealt with by condition but it is expected that access will lower the existing kerbs on the turning head. Visibility from the site is acceptable as access will come out of the turning head. Bin storage has been included within 25m of the adopted highway and this is acceptable. Turning on site for larger vehicles is available and this can cater for deliveries. (c) Vehicle Movements The site is likely to generate a net increase of around 46 movements per day. The peak hour increase is likely to be in the region of 6 movements and this level of increase is likely to have an insignificant impact on the capacity of Woodridge Close, The Ridgeway, Hazel Hill and its junction with the A3095 Station Roundabout. However cumulatively with other development in the area impact will occur on the surrounding infrastructure (however this could be mitigated through an appropriate legal agreement). Comments have been made by local residents regarding increased traffic. A scheme for 14 flats (application 08/00338/FUL, which was dismissed on appeal) was not dismissed on highway grounds. (d) S.106 Requirements A contribution towards integrated transport and highway safety measures within 3km of the site should be sought. (7) Access Implications As set out in the Design and Access Statement, the construction would comply with Part M of the Building Regulations. Disabled parking bays have been provided within the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of policy EN22 of the BFBLP.


(8) Infrastructure Services and Amenities The following document is a relevant consideration to this proposal: and Limiting the Impact of Development Supplementary Planning Document which was adopted in July 2007 (LID). At this point in time, contributions are sought in respect of the following (based on the mix of units as a result of the amended plans): 1. the wider transportation network see LID Table 2.2 2. local open space/recreational facilities LID Table 4.3 [row 3] 3. built sports facilities serving the development LID Table 5.2 row 1 4. local library facilities LID Table 7.2 row 2 5. local community centre LID Table 8.2 row 2 6. the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA LID para. 11.28 & Table 11.3 with

no occupancy until SPA Strategy works & measures payment has been applied A draft s.106 has been submitted with the application. (9) Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area The Council, in consultation with Natural England, has formed the view that that any net increase in residential development between 400m and 5km straight-line distance from the Thames Basin Heath SPA is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, either alone or in-combination with other plans or projects. This site is located approximately 2.4km from the boundary of the SPA and therefore is likely to result in an adverse effect on the SPA, unless it is carried out together with appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures. Therefore, an Appropriate Assessment must consider whether compliance with conditions or restrictions, such as a planning obligation, can enable it to be ascertained that the proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the site. The site lies within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) which was classified on 9th March 2005 under the EC Birds Directive. The site is designated because it provides habitat for three internationally endangered species of bird, namely the Woodlark, Nightjar and Dartford Warbler. In order to mitigate against the effects upon the SPA, a contribution will be required in accordance with table 11.3 (point 1) of the LID document. A clause within the s.106 agreement, in accordance with paragraph 11.28 of the LID document, to restrict the occupation of the development until related avoidance and mitigation measures are complete will also be required. Natural England has agreed that if the plans are implemented as stated in the SPA Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy, with certain monitoring requirements, Natural England “will stop objecting to consultations on housing applications in those areas of the Borough which have mitigation in line with the avoidance strategy.” Therefore, the Council is convinced, following consultation with Natural England, that the above measures will prevent an adverse affect on the integrity of the SPA. Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC) and Regulation 48(5) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations (1994) permission may be granted.


Natural England have not objected to the proposed development on the basis that the development will be in accordance with the Council’s Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy. A draft S.106 agreement has been submitted with the application. (10) Other Matters The site has potential for archaeological remains. This matter can be covered by an appropriate condition. The proposal involves demolition of an existing property, therefore a bat survey will be required. This matter can be covered by an appropriate condition. The Core Strategy DPD policies CS10 and CS12 require a sustainability statement and energy demand assessment to accompany applications. These matters can be covered by appropriate conditions. This would require the development to be built in accordance with current best practice (Level 3 of the Code of Sustainable Homes) in relation to sustainability (Policy CS10), and an energy demand assessment to show how carbon dioxide emission will be reduced by at least 10% and provide least 20% of energy requirements from onsite renewable energy generation (Policy CS12). v) CONCLUSIONS The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to impact upon the character of the area, neighbouring properties and highway safety. A s.106 will be required to mitigate the impact of the development upon local infrastructure and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Consideration has been given relevant planning history relating to 2 appeals on the site, in addition to the development plan policies and draft SPD. It is considered that the scheme for 11 units would not be in conflict with the Inspectors' decisions on previous appeal schemes.

6 RECOMMENDATION

Following the completion of planning obligation(s) under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 relating to:- 01. transportation infrastructure, public open space, built sports, community, and

library facilities and Thames Basin Heaths SPA That the Head of Development Management be authorised to APPROVE the application subject to the following condition(s):- 01. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

REASON: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

02. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with

the following approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 18 June 2009:


- Plots 1-4 Plans and Elevations (07-P405-21) - Bin/Cycle Store (08-P405-60) and the following approved plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 6th

August 2009: - Site Layout Plan (07-P405-30A) - Plots 5-11 Plans and Elevations (07-P405-40A) - Street Scene Plots 5-11 (08-P405-50A) - Cycle Store (08-P405-61) (or any plans or details subsequently agreed in writing by the Local Planning

Authority as an amendment to the approved plans). REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out only as approved by the

Local Planning Authority. 03. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until a measured survey of

the site and a plan prepared to a scale not less than 1:500 showing details of existing and intended finished ground levels and ground floor levels have be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of the building(s).

REASON: In order to ensure a satisfactory form of development relative to surrounding buildings and landscape.

[Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN20, Core Strategy DPD CS7] 04. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the development, including surfacing of the parking area hereby permitted 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.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and neighbouring properties.

[Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN20, Core Strategy DPD CS7] 05. No development shall take place until details of a scheme of screen walls and

fences (including provision of a 2 m high acoustic fence along the shared boundary with 2 Woodridge Close and 6a The Ridgeway) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full before the occupation of any of the buildings approved in this permission.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, and in the interests of the amenity of adjoining properties.

[Relevant Plans and Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN20, Core Strategy DPD CS7] 06. No development shall take place until a scheme depicting hard and soft

landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. [Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN2 and EN20, CSDPD CS7] 07. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping

shall be carried out in the first planting season following the occupation of the buildings or the practical completion of the development, whichever is the sooner.


Any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

REASON: To ensure that the works are carried out as approved in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

[Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN2 and EN20, CSDPD CS7] 08. All hard landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: To ensure that the works are carried out as approved in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

[Relevant Policies: SEP CC6, BFBLP EN2 and EN20, CSDPD CS7] 09. No flat shall be occupied until a means of vehicular access has been constructed

in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of highway safety. [Relevant Policies: Core Strategy DPD CS23] 10. No flat shall be occupied until a means of access pedestrians and cyclists has

been constructed in accordance with the approved plans. REASON: In the interests of accessibility and to facilitate access by cyclists

and/or pedestrians. [Relevant Policies: BEBLP M6, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 11. No flat shall be occupied until the associated vehicle parking or vehicle parking

and turning space has been surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved drawing. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times.

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate car parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking which would be a danger to other road users.

[Relevant Policies: SEP T4, BFBLP M9, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 12. The development hereby permitted shall not be begun until a scheme has been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for 15 no. covered and secure cycle parking facilities, and 1no. 'Sheffield' stand. The building shall not be occupied until the approved scheme has been implemented. The facilities save as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority shall be retained. REASON: In the interests of accessibility of the development to cyclists.

[Relevant Policies: SEP T4, BFBLP M9, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 13. There shall be no restrictions on the use of the car parking spaces shown on the

approved plan for the occupiers of, or visitors to, any of the buildings hereby permitted.

REASON: To ensure that the development is provided with adequate car parking to prevent the likelihood of on-street car parking which would be a danger to other road users.

[Relevant Policies: SEP T4, BFBLP M9, Core Strategy DPD CS23] 14. No development shall take place until a scheme has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to accommodate:


(a) Parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (b) Loading and unloading of plant and vehicles (c) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (d) Wheel cleaning facilities (f) Temporary portacabins and welfare for site operatives and each facility shall be retained throughout the course of construction of the

development, free from any impediment to its designated use. No other areas on the site, other than those in the approved scheme shall be used for the purposes listed (a) to (d) above without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of amenity and road safety. 15. No development shall take place until a scheme has been submitted to and

approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for external site lighting including lighting units, levels of illumination and hours of use including lighting for the parking courts. No lighting shall be provided at the site other than in accordance with the approved scheme. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring property and the character of the area

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN2O and EN25] 16. No development shall take place until details of a scheme (Working Method

Statement) to control the environmental effects of the demolition and construction work has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(i) control of noise (ii) control of dust, smell and other effluvia (iii) control of surface water run off (iv) site security arrangements including hoardings (v) proposed method of piling for foundations (vi) construction and demolition working hours (vii) hours during the construction and demolition phase, when delivery vehicles

or vehicles taking materials are allowed to enter or leave the site The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme or

as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area. [Relevant Policies: SEP NRM10, BFBLP EN25] 17. The development (including site clearance and demolition) shall not be begun

until:- (i) all the buildings/structures on the site and any trees to be felled have been

surveyed for the presence of bats, and (ii) the survey has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning

Authority, and (iii) either the Local Planning Authority have agreed that no relocation of bats is

necessary or the relocation of bats has been achieved in accordance with proposals previously submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: In the interests of nature conservation [Relevant Plans and Policies: SEP NRM5, Core Strategy CS1] 18. No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work

(which may comprise more than one phase of work) has been implemented in


accordance with a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only take place in accordance with the detailed scheme approved pursuant to this condition.

REASON: To ensure that any archaeological remains within the site are adequately investigated and recorded or preserved in situ

[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN6 and EN7] 19. The development shall not be begun until a Sustainability Statement

demonstrating how the development meets current best practice standards in the sustainable use of natural resources has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall include either a Design Stage Report and BRE Interim Certificate or a pre-assessment estimator carried out by an independent assessor licensed by the Building Research Establishment demonstrating that the development meets a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or a “Very Good” or “Excellent” BREEAM rating. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the Sustainability Statement and shall be retained in accordance therewith unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written consent to any variation.

REASON: In the interests of sustainability and the efficient use of resources.

[Relevant Policy: Core Strategy DPD CS10] 20. The development shall not be occupied until a Post Construction Review Report

carried out by an independent assessor licensed by the Building Research Establishment and a Final Code Certificate has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority which demonstrates that the development has been constructed to meet a minimum standard of Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes or a “Very Good” or “Excellent” BREEAM rating.

REASON: In the interests of sustainability and the efficient use of resources.

[Relevant Policy: Core Strategy DPD CS10] 21. The development shall not be begun until an Energy Demand Assessment has

been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall demonstrate:

(a) that the proposed development will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by at

least 10% against the appropriate Target Emission Rate as set out in Part L of the Building Regulations (2006), and

(b) that a proportion of the development’s energy requirements will be provided from on-site renewable energy production (which proportion shall be 20% unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority).

The buildings thereafter constructed by the carrying out of the development shall

be in accordance with the approved assessment and retained in accordance therewith, unless the Local Planning Authority gives prior written consent to any variation.

REASON: In the interests of the sustainability and the efficient use of resources.

[Relevant Plans and Policies: CSDPD Policy CS12] 22. Those windows shown on the approved drawings as having obscured glazing in

part or full, shall at all times be so fitted with a minimum of level 3 obscure glass. REASON: To prevent the overlooking of neighbouring property.


[Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN20] 23. The two skylights in the roof slope facing 2 Woodridge Close of the proposed

development shall at all times be no less than 1.8 metres above internal floor level.

REASON: To prevent the overlooking of neighbouring property. [Relevant Policies: BFBLP EN20] Summary Of Reason(s) For Decision: The following development plan policies have been taken into account in determining this planning application: Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan: • EN3 – which seeks to ensure that the special value and character of SPAs, SACs and SSSIs are protected. • EN20 – as it would be acceptable in terms of its impact upon the character of the area, and amenity of surrounding properties and adjoining area • EN22 – which seeks to ensure there will be convenient access, parking space and facilities for people with disabilities • EN25 – which seeks to avoid development which would generate unacceptable levels of noise, smoke, gases, fumes, effluent, vibration, dust or other environment effects which would adversely added the amenities of occupiers or buildings, or users of outdoor space. • M4 – which seeks to ensure that development which would result in a material increase in the use of the existing highway will provide appropriate pedestrian, cycling and public transport routes • M9 – which seeks satisfactory parking provision for vehicles and cycles • R5 – which requires that residential development of a net increase in five or more dwellings on sites less than one hectare will enter into a planning obligation for a contribution towards recreational facilities in the area. Core Strategy Development Plan Document: • CS2 – which seeks to ensure that land will be allocated for development in the following order: Bracknell Town Centre; previously developed land and buildings in defined settlement; other land within defined settlements where there is no conflict with other policies; extensions to defined settlements with good public transport links • CS6 – which seeks to ensure that development will mitigate adverse impacts upon communities, transport and the environment • CS7 – which seeks to ensure that developments are of high quality design • CS10 – which requires development proposals to be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement • CS12 – which requires development proposals to be accompanied by an Energy Demand Assessment • CS14 – which seeks to avoid an adverse impact upon the integrity of the Thames Basins Heaths Special Protection Area • CS24 – which seeks to ensure that development will mitigate any transport impacts which may arise from the development or cumulatively with other proposals Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England: • CC6 – which seeks development that will respect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of settlements and landscapes, and use innovative design to create a high quality built environment which promotes a sense of place.


• CC7 – which requires sufficient capacity to be available in existing infrastructure to meet the needs of new development, and where this cannot be demonstrated, that additional capacity be released through demand management measures, better management of existing or provision of new infrastructure. • H5 – which seeks positive measures to raise the quality of new housing, reduce its environmental impact, and make good use of land. • T4 – which seeks an appropriate level of parking • NRM6 – which requires new residential development which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) to demonstrate that adequate measures are put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. • NRM10 – which seeks development to include measures to address and reduce noise pollution. Planning Policy Statements: • PPS1: ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ which sets out sets out the overarching planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system. • PPS3: ‘Housing’, which seeks to achieve high quality and well-designed housing; a mix of housing, both market and affordable; housing developments in suitable locations, which offer a good range of community facilities and with good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure; a flexible, responsive supply of land; and effective use of land, including re-use of previously-developed land, where appropriate. Supplementary Planning Documents: • Limiting the Impact of Development Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007), which provides guidance on planning obligations which may be required to satisfy planning policies, and aimed at making development more sustainable. • Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007), which sets out the parking standards for the Borough. • Sustainable Resource Management Supplementary Planning Document (October 2008), which provides guidance relating to how new developments should be constructed in a sustainable way in order to meet local, regional and national best practice standards relating to natural resource use and climate change. (Please note that this is not intended to be an exhaustive list). The following considerations have been taken into account: Third party representations were received on grounds that the proposal would be contrary to local policies, and previous appeal decisions, out of character and overdevelopment, impact upon local properties, insufficient parking, highway safety issues, increased traffic, loss of privacy and impact upon the SPA. These comments have been taken into consideration, however it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan, and would not result in a form of development out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area, and would be designed and sited so as to avoid an adverse impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. The proposal would have an acceptable level of parking provision, and would not result in any highway safety implications. The impact upon the SPA can be resolved through an appropriate planning obligation. Previous appeals decision on the site for 14 units (application 08/00338/FUL - dismissed on appeal ) and 4 flats (08/01015/FUL - allowed on appeal) have also been taken into consideration, and it is not considered that there would be any conflict with


the Inspectors' decisions. The proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to impact upon the character of the area, neighbouring properties and highway safety. A s.106 will be required to mitigate the impact of the development upon local infrastructure and the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. The application is therefore approved. In the event of the S106 planning obligation(s) not being completed by 29 October 2009 the Head of Development Management be authorised to REFUSE the application on the grounds of:- 01. The occupants of the development would put extra pressure on the Thames

Basin Heaths Special Protection Area and the applicants have not satisfactorily mitigated the development to comply with Limiting the Impact of Development Supplementary Planning Document (July 2007). In the absence of a section 106 planning obligation to secure suitable mitigation measures, the proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan, Policy EN3 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and Policy CS14 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document.

02. The proposed development would unacceptably increase the pressure on

highways and transportation infrastructure, public open space, built sports, community, and library facilities. In the absence of a planning obligation in terms that are satisfactory to the Local Planning Authority, and which secure contributions towards integrated transport and highway safety measures, open space, built sports, community and library facilities, the proposal is contrary to Policy CC7 of the South East Plan, Policies R5 and M4 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and CS6, CS8, and CS24 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document and to Supplementary Planning Document Limiting the Impact of Development (adopted July 2007).

Doc. Ref: Uniform 7/DC/Agenda The application file to which this report relates can be viewed at the Council's Time Square office during office hours or online at www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk