Case Reference: 3272074

Appeal Decisions
Inquiry opened on 17 August 2021
Site visit made on 26 August 2021
by David Prentis BA BPl MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 13th September 2021
Appeal A: APP/P3610/W/21/3272074
Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.
• The application Ref 19/01722/FUL, dated 20 December 2019, was refused by notice
dated 23 November 2020.
• The development proposed is described as: demolition of the existing hospital buildings,
accommodation block and associated structures and redevelopment of the site to
provide a new care community for older people arranged in two buildings, comprising
302 care residences, 10 care apartments and 28 care suites providing transitional care,
together with ancillary communal and support services Use Class C2, 24 key worker
units Use Class C3, children’s nursery Use Class E, as well as associated back of house
and service areas, car and cycle parking, altered vehicular and pedestrian access,
landscaping, private amenity space and public open space.
Appeal B: APP/P3610/W/21/3276483
Epsom General Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.
• The application Ref 21/00252/FUL, dated 8 February 2021, was refused by notice dated
6 May 2021.
• The development proposed is described as: demolition of the existing hospital buildings,
accommodation block and associated structures and redevelopment of the site to
provide a new care community for older people arranged in two buildings, comprising
267 care residences, 10 care apartments and 28 care suites providing transitional care,
together with ancillary communal and support services Use Class C2, 24 key worker
units Use Class C3, children’s nursery Use Class E, as well as associated back of house
and service areas, car and cycle parking, altered vehicular and pedestrian access,
landscaping, private amenity space and public open space.
Decision – Appeal A
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Decision – Appeal B
2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of the
existing hospital buildings, accommodation block and associated structures and
redevelopment of the site to provide a new care community for older people
arranged in two buildings, comprising 267 care residences, 10 care apartments
and 28 care suites providing transitional care, together with ancillary
communal and support services Use Class C2, 24 key worker units Use Class
C3, children’s nursery Use Class E, as well as associated back of house and
service areas, car and cycle parking, altered vehicular and pedestrian access,
landscaping, private amenity space and public open space at Epsom General
Hospital, Dorking Road, Epsom KT18 7EG in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 21/00252/FUL, dated 8 February 2021, subject to the
conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Preliminary matters
3. The Inquiry sat for 6 days between 17 August and 25 August 2021. I visited
the site and surrounding area on 26 August 2021. By agreement with the
parties my site visit was mainly unaccompanied. Also by agreement, I visited a
residential property at No 40 Woodcote Green Road in the presence of the
householder, who enabled me to gain access.
4. The description of development for Appeal A is taken from the Statement of
Common Ground. It differs from the description on the application form
because amendments were made. Following the Council’s decision to refuse the
Appeal A application, the appellant submitted a further application which is now
the subject of Appeal B. Subsequently, the appellant requested that some (but
not all) of the changes introduced in the Appeal B application also be made to
the submitted plans for Appeal A. The main changes were:
• an increased setback of buildings from Woodcote Green Road, allowing
space for an additional area of public realm with landscaping and tree
planting;
• an amended parking layout adjacent to the western boundary,
allowing space for landscaping and tree planting;
• the parapet hedge to the podium level sensory garden being set
further back;
• changes to the orientation and placement of west-facing windows
adjacent to properties in Woodcote Green Road; and
• changes to materials (including bricks and cladding colour) and
revisions to details of elevations.
5. I was satisfied that the amendments would not change the substance of the
scheme for which planning permission had been sought and would not result in
any greater impacts on people or the environment. The changes were made in
sufficient time for those who had been consulted on Appeal A to be given an
opportunity to make further comments on the amended plans. I concluded that
nobody would be prejudiced by Appeal A being determined on the basis of the
amended plans. Accordingly, I have determined Appeal A on that basis.
6. Discussions on s106 Agreements for each appeal continued during the course
of the Inquiry. Agreement was reached at a late stage, such that it was
necessary to allow a period after the close of the event for signed documents to
be submitted. The signed Agreements that were subsequently submitted were
consistent with the agreed draft documents that were discussed at the Inquiry.
In the light of agreement having been reached, the Council did not pursue its
fourth reason for refusal, which (in both cases) related to the absence of a
planning obligation to secure affordable housing.
7. The s106 Agreement for Appeal A would secure the following:
• the key worker units would only be let to key workers, at the agreed
key worker rent;
• the approval and implementation of a landscape ecological
management plan;
• the approval and implementation of an employment and skills plan;
• a contribution to mitigate impacts on Woodcote Millennium Green;
• arrangements to ensure that 80% of the nursery places would be
available to key workers;
• a contribution to travel plan auditing;
• arrangements for a car club and car club parking;
• a contribution to the installation of vehicle activated signs on
Woodcote Green Road;
• bus stop improvements and footway widening;
• provision of real time passenger information at bus stops;
• the care units would only be occupied by qualifying persons, thereby
ensuring that the units remain in Use Class C2;
• the provision of village transport services;
• if the Council elects that affordable housing is to be delivered on site,
the provision of 16 affordable rented units and 5 shared ownership
units; and
• if the Council does not elect that affordable housing is to be delivered
on site, an affordable housing contribution enabling affordable housing
to be provided elsewhere in the Borough.
8. The s106 Agreement for Appeal B contains the same provisions, except in
relation to affordable housing. For Appeal B, there would be a lower level of
affordable housing contribution and no option for delivery of affordable housing
on site.
9. For each Agreement, the Council submitted a statement of compliance with the
tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. The
statements explained why the various obligations would be necessary to
mitigate impacts arising from the proposals, identifying relevant planning
policies as appropriate. The statements were not controversial. No party at the
Inquiry suggested that any of the obligations would not be justified. I see no
reason to take a different view and I have taken the obligations into account in
my decisions accordingly. I comment further on the affordable housing
obligations below, under the third main issue.
10. The development plan documents relevant to these appeals are the Core
Strategy 2007 (CS) and the Development Management Policies Document 2015
(DMP). No emerging plans were relied on by any party.
Main issues
11. The main issues are the same for both appeals:
• the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the
area;
• the effect of the proposals on the historic environment;
• the effect of the proposals on the living conditions of neighbouring
residents; and
• whether the proposals would make satisfactory provision for
affordable housing and the infrastructure required to support the
development.
12. I shall discuss impacts on existing trees and the scope for new landscape works
and tree planting under the first main issue. Although I previously indicated
that I would also discuss effects on the historic environment under the first
main issue, I have found it preferable to treat historic environment as a
separate issue in these decisions. This does not change the importance of this
matter relative to other issues. At the Inquiry, all parties were aware of my
statutory duties relating to listed buildings and conservation areas and gave
their evidence accordingly.
Reasons
The effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area
13. Unless otherwise stated, the comments in this section apply to both appeal
schemes.
The site and surroundings
14. The appeal site1 comprises around 1.5ha of land to the south of Epsom General
Hospital. It is part of the hospital site and contains a range of healthcare and
accommodation buildings, together with ancillary structures and surface level
car parks. The most prominent buildings within the appeal site are Rowan
House and Woodcote Lodge, which occupy the frontage to Woodcote Green
Road. These buildings are currently vacant. Some preliminary works of
demolition appear to have taken place. Epsom General Hospital is an
operational hospital complex with a range of modern buildings. The tallest of
these is the Wells building, which is immediately to the north of the appeal site.
To the west and south west of the appeal site there are detached and semi-
detached houses, mainly of two storeys, at Woodcote Green Road, Digdens
Rise and Hylands Close. To the south, across Woodcote Green Road, is
Woodcote Millennium Green. This is a public open space that includes open
green areas, a pond and woodland.
15. The Council’s Environmental Character Study describes the hospital site
(including the appeal site) as having a strong institutional character with a
1 The site boundary is the same for both appeals
collection of visually incongruous buildings, showing little design continuity.
Together with extensive areas of car parking and a utilitarian treatment to
external spaces, this is said to result in a distinctive and discordant character
compared with neighbouring residential areas. The buildings fronting Woodcote
Green Road, with their brick elevations and hipped roofs, are identified as
being more complementary to adjoining areas. The study describes the
character of the residential area to the west as being marked by its location on
the settlement edge, offering a degree of integration with rural and green
spaces to the south. The houses are said to date mostly from the 1930s period,
arranged in predominantly straight street layouts with variations in
architectural style. I agree with these descriptions.
16. Access to the appeal site is from Woodcote Green Road. The main entrance to
the hospital site is from Dorking Road (the A24), to the north. The hospital
access road passes through the complex from Dorking Road to Woodcote Green
Road. Although the site is outside the town centre of Epsom, the shopping
centre and the train station are less than one mile away. There are bus stops
on Woodcote Green Road and Dorking Road. There are no designated heritage
assets within the appeal site. The Chalk Lane Conservation Area lies about
170m to the north east and the Woodcote Conservation Area is about 210m to
the north. There are a number of listed buildings in the locality. Heritage assets
are discussed further below.
Scheme design
17. Much of the accommodation proposed would be for extra care residential units.
However, this would also be a mixed use scheme in that it would include
housing for key workers, a restaurant/café, a nursery, a gym and wellness
centre and retail units. The uses are designed to be integrated with the
hospital. The key worker housing and 80% of the nursery places would be
available to hospital staff. The care suites could offer short term
accommodation for patients ready to leave hospital but not yet ready to return
home. The scheme is also designed to be integrated with the wider community,
with many of the ground floor facilities being open to the public.
18. The communal/public uses would be grouped around a central landscaped
plaza, creating active frontages. Some of the associated activity is intended to
take place in the open space itself, including outdoor tables for the café and a
play area for the nursery. The central space would be enclosed by buildings,
segregated from traffic and readily accessible on foot. I consider that the
design would create a safe, social and inclusive public space which would
provide a focal point for the development.
19. Movement patterns have been well considered. The service bays would be on
the periphery, accessed by the main hospital access road, thereby limiting the
need for service vehicles to enter the scheme. The greater part of the car
parking would be contained within a covered car park, within Building A. There
would be a one way circulation route for cars approaching the car park or
dropping off. This would enable vehicle movements to be kept to the south
western part of the site, enabling pedestrian movement to be prioritised in the
centre of the site. A new pedestrian route would lead from Woodcote Green
Road, through the central public space, towards the centre of the hospital site.
This would provide a more attractive route for pedestrians than the existing
hospital access road and would integrate the appeal site into the fabric of the
surrounding area.
20. The main elements of built form would be aligned with the hospital access
road, Woodcote Green Road and the new pedestrian route. Together with the
central plaza, this would provide a coherent and legible pattern of
development. Other aspects of good design, including the functionality of the
accommodation, use of resources and contribution to biodiversity enhancement
have been taken into account as described in the application documents.
Matters such as sustainable drainage, avoiding overheating, delivery of
biodiversity measures and sustainable construction could be secured by
conditions.
21. To my mind the above features of the design would, taken together, achieve
many of the characteristics of well-designed places2. At the Inquiry, the key
differences between the appellant and the Council/interested parties related to
the height of the proposed buildings and the extent to which they would
represent an appropriate response to the site context.
Response to context
22. Local and national planning policies emphasise the need to have regard to the
context within which development takes place. Policy DM9 of the DMP refers to
the need for consideration of compatibility with local character and the
relationship to the existing townscape. CS Policy CS5 states that development
should reinforce local distinctiveness and complement the attractive
characteristics of the Borough. The National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) states that developments should be sympathetic to local character
and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape
character.
23. The policies must be applied in the particular circumstances of these appeals.
The Epsom General Hospital site as a whole (including the appeal site)
contrasts strongly with the adjoining suburban residential areas and the green
spaces of Woodcote Millennium Green. The existing hospital buildings strike a
discordant note in the wider townscape, albeit that the contrast is less apparent
in views from the south because of the presence of Rowan House and
Woodcote Lodge. The institutional character of the hospital site is long
established and, indeed, pre-dates the 20th century housing that adjoins it.
24. Both schemes seek to respond to that contrast by placing the taller elements in
the northern and central parts of the site, stepping down in scale to Woodcote
Green Road and in the north west corner. The Wells building is the tallest in the
hospital group. Much of the building rises to around 80m above ordnance
datum (AOD), with a projecting element rising a further 8m or so3. The nine
storey Appeal A scheme would rise to around 92m AOD and would thus be
taller than the Wells building. The Appeal B scheme would have one less floor
of accommodation which, together with other design changes, would result in a
height reduction of around 6m. The resulting building would be higher than the
general roof height of the Wells building but not as high as the projecting
element.
2 As set out in the National Design Guide 2019
3 Heights are taken from the Key Images Bundle, page 31. The height quoted for the Wells building does not
include some telecommunications equipment attached to it.
25. The frames of the proposed buildings would be expressed in brick cladding.
Although the final choice of materials would be controlled by a condition, the
appellant explained that there would be some variation in brick colour, with the
colour range and tone reflecting both the geology of the site and the brick
buildings that currently occupy it. To provide some contrast and variation,
parts of the elevations would have profiled metal cladding. The use of varying
materials, together with building details such as chamfered brickwork panels
and differing styles of balconies, would be used to emphasis the vertical lines of
the buildings. This would provide articulation to the facades.
Response to context - Appeal A
26. The four storey element of Building B (in the eastern part of the site) would
establish an appropriately scaled frontage to Woodcote Green Road, similar to
the scale of Rowan House. However, as seen from Woodcote Millennium
Green4, the height and horizontal extent of the taller elements would appear
close behind the frontage buildings. I consider that they would seem
excessively dominant, notwithstanding the materials and other design details
discussed above.
27. The height contrast within the scheme would be apparent in views along
Woodcote Green Road from the south west5. From this angle, the eye would be
drawn to the nine storey element of Building B which would appear to bring the
high density character of the central and northern parts of the scheme
relatively close to Woodcote Green Road and the woodland to the south. This
would create a hard edge to the urban area at this point. The five storey
frontage element of Building A (in the western part of the site) would appear
very dominant in relation to the suburban housing fronting Woodcote Green
Road. This part of Building A would have strong horizontal lines, due to the use
of high level windows, which would emphasise the stark contrast in scale and
character at this point. Moreover, the central and northern parts of Building A
would be seen as a skyline feature, rising above the intervening residential
properties. The height, mass and horizontal extent of the proposed Building A
would be readily apparent. Again, this would be in stark contrast with the low
rise, verdant suburban character of the residential properties.
28. The height contrast between the nine storey element of Building B and the four
storey frontage element would also be a conspicuous feature in views along
Woodcote Green Road from the north east6. The taller element would appear
significantly out of scale with the suburban housing along Woodcote Green
Road. This would be an uncomfortable juxtaposition.
29. The Appellant’s Heritage, Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment (HTVIA)
identified that there would be moderate or minor impacts on the townscape of
Woodcote Millennium Green and the adjoining residential areas. In terms of
visual impacts, moderate or moderate/minor impacts were identified in these
areas on views said to be of low sensitivity. To my mind the HTVIA understates
both townscape and visual impacts. I note that the overall height of the Appeal
A scheme is related to (albeit taller than) the Wells building. However, the
horizontal extent of new buildings at the maximum height would be far greater
than that of the tallest part of the Wells building. Moreover, the tallest
4 Verified view 1 is a representative example
5 Verified view 11 is a representative example
6 Verified views 2 and 3 are representative examples
elements would be much closer to the southern boundary, which I regard as
more sensitive due to its location on the settlement edge, close to Woodcote
Millennium Green.
30. The height and massing of the proposed buildings would be seen in views from
Woodcote Road and Dorking Road7. From these directions, the new buildings
would appear behind the hospital complex. Although there would be some
increase in the overall height of the group, this would not result in a harmful
change to the general character of these views. The proposed buildings would
be seen as a skyline feature in views from St Margaret Drive, an elevated
location to the north of Dorking Road. This viewpoint is at some distance from
the site and the proposed buildings would be one element in a broad panoramic
view. In general, I consider that the visual and townscape impacts in these
locations would be minor.
31. My overall assessment is that the Appeal A scheme would not be well related to
its context due to the height and massing of the proposed buildings and the
proximity of the tallest buildings to Woodcote Green Road. This would result in
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.
Response to context - Appeal B
32. Like the Appeal A scheme, the four storey element of Building B would
establish an appropriately scaled frontage to Woodcote Green Road, similar to
the scale of Rowan House. However, there would be an important difference
between the two schemes in that Building A would also step down to a four
storey scale on the frontage. Some of the taller elements of Building A and
Building B would be seen in views from Woodcote Millennium Green, such that
the viewer would have a sense of the development stepping up within the site.
However, the taller elements would not appear unduly prominent. Nor would
they seem over dominant in relation to the frontage development.
33. In views from the south west, along Woodcote Green Road, the height contrast
within the scheme would be visible but, compared with the Appeal A scheme,
there would be a better balance between the scale of the frontage buildings
and the taller buildings behind. The height contrast between the five storey
element of Building A and the adjoining houses would still be somewhat
incongruous. On the other hand, the step down to four storeys on the frontage
would help to handle the transition in scale. It would also make the horizontal
lines of this part of Building A much less pronounced, which would reduce the
contrast in character between the proposed building and the existing houses.
34. Whilst parts of the central and northern elements of Building A would still be
seen in these views, they would not be a skyline feature. The mass and
horizontal extent of the new building would be broken up by intervening trees
and buildings, such that it would sit more comfortably in its surroundings.
35. The height contrast within the scheme would also be seen in views along
Woodcote Green Road from the north east. However, as in the opposing view,
there would be a better balance between the scale of the frontage buildings
and the taller buildings behind. Like the Appeal A scheme, there would be a
contrast in scale between the taller part of Building B and the two storey
housing along the road frontage. This contrast would be less marked in the
7 Verified views 5 and 9 are representative examples
case of the Appeal B scheme due to the reduced height of Building B. Even so,
I consider that there would be some harm to the character and appearance of
the area at this point.
36. Like the Appeal A scheme, I consider that the impacts on views from Woodcote
Road8, Dorking Road and St Margaret Drive would be minor.
37. My overall assessment is that, for the most part, the Appeal B scheme would
be well related to its context. Nevertheless, I consider that the contrast in scale
between the proposed buildings and nearby residential development would
result in some harmful visual and townscape effects in two specific locations.
These are views along Woodcote Green Road, both from the south west, where
the level of harm would be relatively low, and from the north east, where the
level of harm would be moderate. These effects need to be assessed in the
round together with other design considerations.
Trees and landscaping
38. The effect on existing trees and the scope for new planting is the same for both
appeal schemes. The most important of the existing trees are located in the
north western part of the site, along the boundary with the adjoining
residential area. There are a number of large specimens of considerable
amenity value. Together they perform an important townscape role in marking
the boundary between the institutional character of the hospital site and the
residential character to the west. All but one of the good quality trees in this
part of the site are shown to be retained within new areas of boundary
landscaping. Protection during the construction phase could be secured by a
condition. One high quality beech (T36 in the survey) would be removed to
facilitate the proposed development. Whilst that would be regrettable, in my
view the loss of that tree would be outweighed by the extent of new planting.
39. The existing trees along the Woodcote Green Road frontage would be removed
to facilitate the development and to make way for new planting. The group in
front of Woodcote Lodge (G46) has the appearance of an overgrown hedge.
These trees have been identified as being of low amenity value in the
arboricultural report. I agree. There is a yew tree in front of Rowan House (T2)
which is of modest amenity value. However, in general the trees along the site
frontage are of limited amenity value and their replacement with new planting
offers scope to improve the appearance of the area.
40. The proposals include a double row of trees along Woodcote Green Road in
front of Building B. There would also be new tree planting in front of Building A
and scope for tree, hedge and groundcover planting along the south western
boundary. Illustrative details have been provided showing the types of trees
that could grow in these locations and the way in which provision could be
made for tree roots to become established. Full details of planting could be
controlled by a condition.
41. At the Inquiry, the Council commented that the artist’s impression of the street
trees may be optimistic. However, it was not suggested that appropriate
species could not be planted successfully in this location. There would also be
new tree planting along the pedestrian route and within the central landscaped
space. There would be scope for lower-level planting in the communal garden
8 Woodcote Road runs north from Woodcote Green Road to link with Dorking Road
to the key worker housing, around the retained mature trees. Further street
trees would be planted around the edge of the development, adjacent to the
hospital access road.
42. Taking all this together, I consider that the proposals would retain the most
important of the existing trees, insofar as that is practical. The proposals for
new planting would complement the built form and help to integrate the
scheme into its surroundings. The landscape proposals would make a positive
contribution to the character and appearance of the Woodcote Green Road
frontage.
Conclusions on character and appearance – Appeal A
43. The Appeal A scheme would achieve many of the characteristics of well-
designed places9, including mixed and integrated uses, safe and inclusive public
spaces and a coherent pattern of development. The scheme would be
accessible and easy to move around. The design details and use of materials
would provide articulation to the elevations. The approach to tree planting and
landscaping would enhance the frontage to Woodcote Green Road.
Nevertheless, the Appeal A scheme would not be well related to its context due
to the height and massing of the proposed buildings and the proximity of the
tallest buildings to Woodcote Green Road. In my view this would result in
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.
44. My overall assessment is that the positive attributes of the design would not
outweigh the significant harm to the character and appearance of the area that
I have identified. Viewed in the round, I do not consider that the Appeal A
proposal would amount to good design, as that term is used in the Framework.
It would not add to the overall quality of the area, nor would it be sympathetic
to the local character and the surrounding built environment10.
45. The Appeal A scheme would conflict with Policy CS5 because, although it would
make efficient use of land, it would not reinforce local distinctiveness, nor
would it complement the attractive characteristics of the Borough. It would
accord with Policy DM5, which seeks to avoid significant loss of trees,
hedgerows or other landscape features unless suitable replacements are
proposed. However, it would conflict with Policy DM9 in that it would not make
a positive contribution to the Borough’s visual character and appearance. It
would conflict with Policy DM10, insofar as the policy seeks to promote good
design, because the scale, height and form of development proposed would be
harmful to the character and local distinctiveness of the area11.
Conclusions on character and appearance – Appeal B
46. The positive aspects of the design identified above in relation to Appeal A
would apply equally to the Appeal B scheme. Moreover, the Appeal B scheme
would, for the most part, be well related to its context. The contrast in scale
between the proposed buildings and nearby residential development would
result in some harmful visual and townscape effects. I consider that there
would be a relatively low level of harm in views along Woodcote Green Road
from the south west and a moderate level of harm in views along the road from
9 As described in the National Design Guide
10 Paragraphs 126 and 130 of the Framework
11 There are several elements to Policy DM10. I make an assessment against the policy as a whole in the
conclusions to these decisions.
the north east. On the other hand, these effects would not be experienced over
a wide area. In closer views, from Woodcote Green Road and Woodcote
Millennium Green, the proposal would create an appropriately scaled frontage.
Together with the proposed landscape works, that would result in an
enhancement on the current situation.
47. I consider that the positive attributes of the design, including those relating to
land use, public spaces and movement patterns, would outweigh the harm that
I have identified. The Appeal B scheme would represent good design that would
be visually attractive. It would add to the quality of the area. The overall
impact on the character and appearance of the area would be positive.
48. The Appeal B proposal would accord with Policy CS5 insofar as it would
represent high quality design that would create attractive and safe
environments, complement the attractive characteristics of the Borough and
make efficient use of land. It would accord with Policy DM5, which seeks to
avoid significant loss of trees, hedgerows or other landscape features unless
suitable replacements are proposed. It would also accord with Policy DM9, in
that it would make a positive contribution to the Borough’s visual character and
appearance, and with Policy DM10 insofar as it would represent good design.
The effect of the proposals on the historic environment
49. The applications were supported by the HTVIA which identified the heritage
assets that may be affected and described their significance. These matters
were not controversial in themselves, although the contribution of setting to
the significance of some of the assets, and hence the impact of the proposals
on significance, were not agreed. There are no heritage assets within the site.
The potential for effects on the historic environment arises from effects on the
settings of heritage assets.
Chalk Lane Conservation Area
50. The conservation area is characterised by a concentration of listed buildings,
including prestigious detached houses in substantial plots and weatherboarded
cottages. It has an enclosed and intimate character, due to a combination of
high brick boundary walls and buildings set close to the village street. In
general, the setting of the conservation area adds relatively little to the
significance of the area due to the enclosed character. However, the
Conservation Area Character Appraisal does identify important views out of the
designated area, to the east and south, which allow the rural setting of these
parts of the designated area to be appreciated.
51. There is also a view out of the designated area, towards the appeal site, along
Woodcote Green Road from the junction with Chalk Lane12. This is not identified
as an important view in the appraisal. The view encompasses suburban housing
on the north side of Woodcote Green Road, with trees and woodland to the
south. To the extent that some woodland is visible, this adds a little to the
ability to experience the conservation area as a settlement that retains part of
its rural setting. The appeal schemes would not change that very much, as they
would appear above the suburban housing. However, the additional height
would have an urbanising effect that would cause some harm.
12 Verified view 3
52. Given that the harm would be caused to a view that itself makes only a minor
contribution to the significance of the designated area, the harm to the
heritage asset would be at the lower end of “less than substantial harm”13.
There would be minor harm to the character and appearance of the
conservation area due to development in its setting. These conclusions are the
same for both appeal schemes, although the Appeal B scheme would have still
less impact because it would not be as tall as the Appeal A scheme.
Woodcote Conservation Area
53. The Conservation Area Character Appraisal describes the area as a modestly
sized urban conservation area, focussed on the junction of South Street with
Woodcote Road and Dorking Road. It is said to contain varied building lines and
plot sizes, with listed buildings and unlisted 19th century buildings that make a
positive contribution to its character. I agree that these features contribute to
the significance of the conservation area. The appraisal identifies various views
or vistas of note but none of these are views towards the hospital.
54. There would be panoramic views across the designated area from higher
ground to the north of Dorking Road at St Margaret Drive14. The viewpoints
themselves are outside the designated area. Although elements of the
conservation area can be seen in these views, these are mainly rooftops and
tree tops. The views add nothing to the ability to experience or understand
what is special about the designated area. Thus, although the views would be
changed by the proposed development, there would be no harm to the
character and appearance of the conservation area, nor would there be any
impact on its significance.
Listed Buildings in the Chalk Lane Conservation Area
55. Westgate House (Grade II) stands close to the junction of Chalk Lane and
Woodcote Green Road. It is seen in the context of its own high boundary walls
and other listed buildings grouped around the junction. These aspects of its
setting, which contribute to the ability to experience the heritage asset, would
not be affected by the proposals. The proposals would be visible in views out
from the upper levels of the listed building. Such views would encompass the
immediate setting of the conservation area and middle distance views of
suburban housing and woodland. I consider that the appeal proposals, which
would be at some distance from the viewpoint, would have no material impact
on the ability to experience the significance of the heritage asset.
56. To the extent that setting contributes to the significance of other listed
buildings in the conservation area, this relates to the curtilages of the buildings
themselves and the grouping of listed buildings within the conservation area. In
each case there would be very limited or no inter-visibility with the appeal
proposals. There would be no material impact on the setting or the significance
of any of these listed buildings.
Listed Buildings in the Clock House group
57. These buildings15 are set within a curtilage enclosed by boundary walls and
planting. Although the upper parts of the Wells building can be glimpsed from
13 As that term is used in the Framework
14 Verified view 8 is a representative example
15 The Bell House, The Clock House, East Lodge (all Grade II)
some parts of the curtilage, the hospital site makes no contribution to the
ability to experience these assets. Whilst the appearance of the hospital site
would change as a result of the appeal proposals, there would be no impact on
the significance of these listed buildings.
The White Horse Public House
58. The setting of the White Horse (Grade II) is dominated by the busy Dorking
Road and the institutional character of the hospital to the rear. Its position
immediately adjacent to Dorking Road adds to the ability to understand the
former function of the listed building as a roadside inn. That relationship would
be unaffected by the proposals. The hospital site adds nothing to the
significance of the listed building. Although the appearance of the hospital site
would change, there would be no impact on the significance of this listed
building.
Listed Buildings in The Hylands group
59. The Hylands (Grade II*) and Nos 67 and 69 Dorking Road (Grade II) stand on
the south side of Dorking Road. In general, the wider surroundings, beyond the
immediate setting of the respective curtilages, add little to the ability to
experience these assets. That said, their roadside position allows the viewer to
stand back and appreciate the principal elevations of these buildings, as a
group, from the opposite side of the road. The ability to do that would be
unaffected by the proposals.
60. There are further viewpoints on White Horse Drive, at a slightly higher
elevation, from where the appeal proposals would be seen above the roofline of
the listed buildings. This would compete with, and distract from, the view of the
listed buildings resulting in some harm to their significance. However, these are
not particularly important views and, moreover, the listed buildings are
partially obscured by features such as walls and trees in any event.
61. The proposals would not be seen in views of Hylands House (Grade II*) and
West Hylands (Grade II) from Dorking Road. However, in common with the
other listed buildings in this group, the appeal proposals are likely to be visible
from inside these buildings. Such views will already have been much affected
by existing development at the hospital. The proposals would result in the
addition of some height and massing in such views but the institutional
character of the views would not be greatly altered.
62. I consider that the level of harm (for each asset in this group) would be at the
lower end of less than substantial harm. These conclusions are the same for
both appeal schemes, although the Appeal B scheme would have less impact
because it would not be as tall as the Appeal A scheme.
Other listed buildings
63. Tamarisk Cottage (Grade II) has a flank elevation that abuts Whitehorse Drive.
This setting adds to its significance insofar as it enables the viewer to
appreciate the front and flank elevations of the listed building from the public
realm. The appeal schemes would be visible from the same vantage point,
albeit at some distance and in a different direction. There would be no impact
on the ability to experience the listed building and no harm to its significance.
64. There are some listed garden walls at Orchard Gardens (Grade II). These are
vestiges of an earlier period of development, now subsumed within suburban
housing. Their significance resides in the retained fabric and the evidence this
holds in relation to previous occupation. The wider surroundings add nothing to
the significance of the asset. There would be no impact on the ability to
experience the listed building and no harm to its significance.
65. The HTVIA identified some further listed buildings in the locality where it was
concluded that there would be no impact on significance. These conclusions
were not disputed at the Inquiry and I see no reason to take a different view.
Conclusions on the historic environment
66. I conclude that there would be some minor harm to the character and
appearance of the Chalk Lane Conservation Area through development in its
setting. There would also be some harm to the settings of the following listed
buildings:
• The Hylands (Grade II*)
• Hylands House (Grade II*)
• West Hylands (Grade II)
• Nos 67 and 69 Dorking Road (Grade II)
67. In each case the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than
substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset. I reach the same
overall conclusion for both schemes, whilst noting that the Appeal B scheme
would have less impact than the Appeal A scheme. Even so, any harm to a
designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and weight.
Moreover, it will be necessary to carry out the balancing exercise set out in
paragraph 202 of the Framework. I shall return to that balance in the
conclusions to these decisions.
68. Both schemes would conflict with Policy CS5, insofar as that policy seeks to
protect the settings of heritage assets.
69. There would be no harm to the character and appearance of the Woodcote
Conservation Area. There would be no harm to the settings of any of the other
listed buildings identified in the evidence, nor would there be any harm to the
significance of such assets.
The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring
residents
70. In both appeal schemes Building A would occupy the western part of the site,
which adjoins a residential area that includes houses in Woodcote Green Road,
Digdens Rise and Hylands Close. Building B would occupy the eastern part of
the site in both schemes. Although there are houses facing Woodcote Green
Road to the east of the appeal site, these are separated from it by a hospital
car park which would be unaffected by the proposals. Moreover, these houses
back on to parts of the hospital complex that would also be unaffected. Having
regard to the separation distance and the orientation of these houses, I do not
consider that there would be any material impacts from Building B on living
conditions here. The following comments therefore focus on the impacts of
Building A on houses to the west of the site.
71. Although the Appeal A scheme would be taller than the Appeal B scheme, the
effects on the living conditions of neighbouring residents would be broadly
similar. Except where specifically stated, the following comments relate to both
schemes. Sunlight and daylight studies have been provided. These studies
concluded that there would be no unacceptable impacts on natural lighting to
the adjoining dwellings. Nor would there be harmful shadowing of gardens. The
Council has accepted the results of these studies and I see no reason to take a
different view.
72. I consider that the potential impacts on living conditions would be greatest at
Nos 40 and 46 Woodcote Green Road and at Nos 22 and 24 Digdens Rise.
No 40 Woodcote Green Road
73. No 40 is a two storey detached house, facing Woodcote Green Road. The house
occupies a relatively deep plot which has a common boundary with the appeal
site on the north eastern side. The main aspects of the dwelling are to the
front, towards Woodcote Green Road, and to the rear, over the back garden.
Although there are some openings in the north eastern flank elevation, these
are obscure glazed. I saw that part of No 40 is closer to the common boundary
than is shown on the plans and I have taken that into account.
74. The section of Building A closest to Woodcote Green Road would be five storeys
in height16. The elevation facing No 40 would have a stepped façade, with
natural light being provided by a combination of high level windows and full
height windows facing north west. This design would avoid harmful overlooking
of No 40. The southernmost end of the taller element of Building A would have
windows facing towards the garden of No 40. These windows would be over
30m from the house itself. Moreover, the orientation of the windows would be
angled away from the house, towards the bottom of the garden. Any views of
those parts of the garden closest to the house, which are likely to be the most
intensively used and thus the most sensitive, would be at an oblique angle. In
addition, the proposals include new tree planting along the boundary. In time
this would help to filter views of and from the new buildings. The details of
such planting could be secured by a condition.
75. In the Appeal A scheme, the southernmost end of the taller section of Building
A would have windows facing over the five storey section. Some of these
windows would not have a direct line of sight to No 40 because the five storey
section would intervene. For those windows that would have a line of sight,
I consider that the acute angle of the view, combined with the separation
distance, would avoid harmful overlooking.
76. The submitted drawings for the Appeal B scheme are inconsistent. The floor
plans show windows (as for Appeal A) at the southernmost end of the taller
section of Building A whereas the elevations show projecting balconies at the
top two levels. If the appeal were to be allowed, it would be necessary to
resolve this inconsistency. That said, whilst the small balconies shown on the
elevations would have a slightly greater impact on privacy than windows in the
same location, the points made above about separation distance and angle of
view would still apply.
16 For Appeal scheme B this would drop down to four storeys for one bay closest to Woodcote Green Road
77. I consider that the most appropriate way to resolve the inconsistency in the
plans would be to impose a condition restricting the provision of balconies at
this point until such time as further details (including any consequential
revisions to the floor plans of the affected units) have been submitted to and
approved by the local planning authority. Such a condition would be a variation
of that suggested by the appellant17 and would be consistent with advice in
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). That advice contemplates minor
modifications being secured by planning conditions, where such modifications
would not make the development substantially different from that proposed in
the application18.
78. The three storey flank elevation of Woodcote Lodge is sited close to No 40.
Although the five storey section of Building A would be taller, it would be set
further into the appeal site. To the rear of No 40, the proposed building would
step progressively away from the common boundary. The south west corner of
the taller section of Building A would be a very prominent feature, particularly
as seen from the garden of No 40. However, as seen from windows at the back
of the house, this element would be offset considerably to one side of the view
down the garden. Moreover, it would be around 29m from the nearest point of
the house19 and the west facing elevation would be angled away from the
boundary. Although this wing of Building A would have a lengthy and tall west
elevation, the bulk of the elevation would be sited beyond the end of the back
garden of No 40. Taking these factors together, notwithstanding the height and
prominence of the proposed building, I do not consider that it would have an
unduly enclosing or overbearing effect.
79. The proposals include a one-way circulation system. Vehicles would enter the
site via a new access adjacent to the boundary with No 40. Although there
would be some external parking, the bulk of the parking would be contained
within a two level car park beneath the sensory garden. The service bays for
Building A and Building B would be reached via the main hospital access road.
Consequently, most of the vehicles using the new access would be cars.
80. The proposals include tree and hedge planting along the boundary. In addition,
the appellant has suggested the provision of an acoustic fence. These matters
could be secured by conditions. At present, the area behind Woodcote Lodge is
used for car parking. The provision of a new access at this point would result in
some increase in vehicle movements close to the boundary. However, having
regard to the likely numbers of vehicles entering the site20, together with these
mitigation measures, I do not consider that there would be an unacceptable
impact on No 40 in terms of noise and disturbance.
81. Overall, the proposals would have some impacts on No 40. The appearance of
the surroundings would change markedly, there would be some additional
overlooking and an increase in vehicle movements close to the boundary.
However, subject to the conditions discussed above, these impacts would not
be so great as to result in unacceptably poor living conditions.
17 ID17
18 Reference ID: 21a-012-20140306
19 Key Images Bundle, page 34 – this is the appellant’s figure, which was not disputed by other parties
20 As set out in the Transport Assessment (CD1.3.21)
No 46 Woodcote Green Road
82. No 46 is a detached dwelling located behind houses fronting Woodcote Green
Road. It is sited more or less centrally within the plot, such that the rear
elevation faces a common boundary with the appeal site. There is extensive
tree cover within the garden, between the house and the common boundary,
which has created a tall and dense screen. The southern wing of the taller
section of Building A would be largely (if not wholly) hidden by these trees.
Building A would be set well within the site, angled away from the common
boundary. The separation distance would vary, depending where the
measurement was made, ranging from a minimum of 37m to over 46m21. Even
if the site were to become more visible in the future than it is now, I consider
that the orientation of Building A, together with the separation distance, would
avoid an unduly overbearing or enclosing effect or a harmful degree of
overlooking.
Nos 22 and 24 Digdens Rise
83. Nos 22 and 24 are a pair of semi-detached houses which back on to the north
western section of the appeal site. Building A would step down to four storeys
in this part of the site, with key worker housing and extra care units having
windows facing towards the rear elevations of the adjoining houses. There
would be a separation distance of around 31m for No 22. This distance would
be reduced (at ground floor level) for No 24 which has a rear extension. Even
so, it would be in excess of the 21m of separation between opposing properties
which is mentioned in the DMP22.
84. There are some substantial trees within the appeal site close to this part of the
boundary, which are to be retained. They would not screen the new buildings,
either because they are deciduous or (in the case of a tall pine) clear stemmed
to a considerable height. Nevertheless, the retained trees, together with
proposed new planting, would filter and soften the inter-visibility between the
new and existing buildings. Tree protection and the details of new planting
could be secured by conditions.
85. The western flank elevation of the northern wing of the taller section of
Building A would also be visible from Nos 22 and 24, behind the four storey
section of Building A. However, I consider that the separation distance here
would be sufficient to avoid any harmful impacts. Overall, I conclude that the
proposals would not result in unduly overbearing or enclosing effects, or a
harmful degree of overlooking, in respect of Nos 22 and 24. There are other
houses in Digdens Rise and Hylands Close that would also have views of
Building A. However, in each case the potential for overbearing effects and
overlooking would be less than that described above in relation to Nos 22 and
24.
86. Drawing all this together, I conclude that the proposals would not result in
unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. DMP
Policy DM10 sets out design requirements for all new developments. Part (ix)
states that proposals should have regard to the amenities of neighbours,
including in terms of privacy, outlook, sunlight/daylight and noise and
disturbance. For the reasons given above, I conclude that both appeal schemes
21 Key Images Bundle, page 34 – these are the appellant’s figures, which were not disputed by other parties
22 DMP, paragraph 3.20
have had due regard to these matters and would accord with Policy DM10 in
these respects.
Whether the proposal would make satisfactory provision for affordable
housing and the infrastructure required to support the development
87. CS Policy CS9 states that residential developments of 15 or more dwellings
should include at least 40% of the dwellings as affordable. The Council’s
Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document confirms that this
requirement will apply to extra care housing. The policy allows for the viability
of a proposal to be taken into account. A Financial Viability Appraisal was
submitted with the Appeal A application. This showed that the proposal would
generate a negative residual land value and was therefore unviable. The
appraisal concluded that the scheme could not provide any affordable housing.
88. Not all of the inputs to the viability modelling were agreed by the Council.
However, following negotiations, the Council and the appellant reached
agreement on the following affordable housing offer:
• if the Council elects that affordable housing is to be provided on site,
there would be 16 affordable rented units and 5 affordable shared
ownership units; or
• if the Council does not so elect, there would be an affordable housing
contribution of £3.5 million.
89. These are the options that are reflected in the s106 Agreement for Appeal A.
The Council and the appellant advised the Inquiry that it was appropriate to
leave both options open, so that the greatest benefit to the overall provision of
affordable housing could be achieved. For example, it may well be that the
contribution would be used to fund Class C3 affordable housing, for which there
is a great need, in another location.
90. There was no further information on financial viability before the Inquiry.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the offer has emerged from a process of
negotiation in which both the Council and the appellant were supported by
appropriately qualified professional advisors. In these circumstances, I attach
significant weight to the agreement that has been reached. Although the
affordable housing offer is well below the policy requirement of 40%, I accept
that it is the most that can reasonably be achieved having regard to viability
considerations. On that basis the Appeal A proposal accords with Policy CS9.
91. The s106 Agreement for Appeal B does not envisage the delivery of affordable
housing on site. There would be a financial contribution of £1.5 million. Given
that the Appeal B scheme would contain fewer units, it is to be expected that
the affordable housing offer would be lower. The Council advised that the scale
of the offer was such that it was unlikely to be practical to make provision on
site. As for Appeal A, there was no further information on financial viability
before the Inquiry. However, like Appeal A, the offer has been agreed following
a process of negotiation. For the same reasons, I accept that this is the most
that can reasonably be achieved, having regard to viability considerations. On
that basis the Appeal B proposal also accords with Policy CS9.
92. The Council identified a need for infrastructure resulting from the proposals,
including bus stop enhancements, real time passenger information for bus
services, vehicle activated signs and footway widening. Provision of this
infrastructure would be secured by both of the s106 Agreements.
93. I conclude that both appeal schemes would make satisfactory provision for
affordable housing and the infrastructure required to support the development.
Other matters
Housing delivery and housing land supply
94. The Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) records that the 2020 Housing
Delivery Test (HDT) result for Epsom and Ewell was 34%. The delivery of
housing has been substantially below the requirement over the last three
years. In these circumstances the Framework states that the approach to
decision making set out in paragraph 11(d) should be applied.
95. The SoCG also states that the Government’s standard method identifies a
housing requirement of 579 new homes each year. Due to the HDT position, a
20% buffer is needed which increases the requirement to 695. The Council is
currently falling significantly below its five year housing land supply target,
with the identified supply being 0.98 years. This would also trigger the
approach to decision making set out in paragraph 11(d) of the Framework.
The benefits of the schemes
Housing delivery
96. Guidance relating to the HDT provides a methodology for assessing the
contribution that communal accommodation, including care accommodation,
makes to housing supply. On that basis, the Council and the appellant agree
that the Appeal A scheme would contribute the equivalent of 325 units to the
Council’s housing land supply. The Appeal B scheme would contribute the
equivalent of 292 units. In my view this is not merely a theoretical contribution
to housing land supply. The proposals would enable older people to move from
existing housing, freeing up that stock for use by others. Consequently, it is
appropriate to have regard to this contribution as a benefit of the proposals.
97. Interested parties have argued that some of those occupying the proposed
units will be moving from outside the Council’s area. That is a fair point to
make. Whilst the appellant uses a notional catchment area of five miles for
calculating need, that is an average figure. The evidence shows that a
significant proportion of new residents would move from further afield which
would include locations outside the Council’s area. Nevertheless, the
Framework emphasises the importance of significantly boosting the supply of
homes23. This objective is not confined to specific areas. To my mind, freeing
up housing stock in other local authority areas is still a benefit.
98. It is important to note the pressing need for housing in Epsom and Ewell, as
shown by the HDT outcomes and the housing land supply position. In the light
of that pressing need, I attach significant weight to the contribution that the
proposals would make to housing land supply.
23 Paragraph 60
Affordable housing
99. For Appeal A, 21 affordable units may be provided on site or affordable units
may be provided off site, funded by a financial contribution. The actual number
of units that would be achieved off site is not known but it can be assumed that
the contribution to meeting housing needs would be broadly equivalent.
Whichever route is followed, the level of provision would be far below the 40%
policy requirement set out in Policy CS9. For Appeal B, the affordable units
could only be provided elsewhere. The actual number of units likely to be
achieved is not known but will inevitably be even lower that that achieved by
the Appeal A contribution. This level of provision would be compliant with policy
CS9, which allows viability to be taken into account. However, that does not
alter the fact that the number of units provided would be very low relative to
the scale of the proposals.
100. The proposals also include 24 units for key workers. This would be a
replacement for equivalent units that are already on site, so there would be no
benefit in quantitative terms. It is likely that there would be some qualitative
improvement, to which some weight can be attached.
101. I take account of the low level of delivery of affordable housing in the
Borough. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, I attach only moderate weight
to the provision of affordable housing.
Extra care housing
102. The Framework states that the housing needed for different groups in the
community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies, including the
needs of older people and people with disabilities24. National Planning Practice
Guidance (NPPG) states that the need to provide housing for older people is
critical and that the proportion of older people in the population is increasing.
NPPG goes on to say that giving older people a better choice of accommodation
to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel
more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care
and health systems25. Policy DM21 states that permission will be granted for
specialised forms of residential accommodation where there is evidence of need
and there will not be overprovision of a particular type of accommodation.
103. Some interested parties suggested that the amount of care accommodation
proposed is excessive and that there is a greater need for general housing.
Attention was drawn to Surrey County Council’s estimate that, having regard to
existing needs and capacity, there will be a shortfall of 248 units by 2035. This
estimate is based on the projected needs of those aged 75 and over26. The
appellant submitted an assessment which concluded that there would be a
shortfall of 951 units by 2024.
104. I have taken account of the comments of the Inspector considering an
appeal at Walton-on-Thames27, who noted that there is no single, recognised
methodology for identifying future residential and nursing care need. The
Inspector commented that it would be unsafe to assume that those aged
between 65 and 74 would not need appropriate housing for their care needs.
24 Paragraph 62
25 NPPG Reference ID 63-001-20190626
26 Paragraphs 11.25 and 11.26 of the officer’s report for the Appeal A application (CD3.3)
27 APP/K3605/W/20/3263347, paragraphs 74 and 77 (CD5.3)
I share that view. Having regard to the differing estimates of need before the
Inquiry, I conclude that the County Council’s estimate should not be read as a
limit on the amount of care accommodation to be provided. Nor should the
benefits of provision in excess of that number be given less weight than would
otherwise be attached.
105. Whilst it is right to say that there is a great need for general housing in
Epsom and Ewell, I see no policy justification for refusing or limiting another
use (in this case extra care housing) for which there is also a great need. There
is no evidence that there would be any harmful consequences of providing the
amount of extra care accommodation proposed at the appeal site.
106. The proposed care accommodation would have benefits for future occupiers,
in terms of improved wellbeing and better health outcomes. Moreover, there
would be wider social and economic benefits in terms of reduced need for GP
and hospital services. The proposed care suites could also offer a facility for
those ready to leave Epsom General Hospital who may need some time in a
care setting before returning home.
107. Having regard to identified need for care accommodation for older people,
and the wider social and economic benefits, I attach significant weight to the
provision of extra care accommodation. I consider that both schemes would
accord with Policy DM21, insofar as that policy seeks evidence of need for
specialised forms of residential accommodation and insofar as the policy seeks
to avoid overprovision of such accommodation28.
Use of previously developed land
108. Rowan House and Woodcote Lodge are currently vacant. Other parts of the
appeal site are currently in use for purposes associated with the hospital,
including areas of surface car parking. However, the whole site has been
declared surplus to the requirements of the NHS. Part of the site has been sold
to the appellant company and the remainder (which is owned by a trust) is
subject to an option to purchase. The Framework emphasises the importance
of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other
identified needs29. This advice is pertinent to the appeal site which comprises a
previously developed institutional site within the settlement of Epsom.
109. Moreover, the land is in a reasonably accessible location in relation to the
town centre, public transport and highways infrastructure. It is therefore
suitable land for meeting identified needs. There is no dispute that there is an
identified need for care accommodation for older people in Epsom. Accordingly,
I attach significant weight to the benefit of using brownfield land to address
that need. The proposals would accord with Policy CS8 which emphasises the
use of previously developed land for housing.
Economic benefits
110. It is estimated that, once operational, the Appeal A scheme would generate
around 81 jobs, including direct and indirect jobs. The Appeal B scheme would
generate around 74 jobs. Both schemes would add to GDP generally and result
in additional household spending in the local and wider economy. Both schemes
would generate employment and expenditure during the construction phase.
28 Policy DM21 also has a criterion relating to potential conversion to other uses, which is discussed below.
29 Paragraph 120
The s106 Agreements would provide for 80% of the nursery places to be made
available for key workers. This would support the recruitment and retention of
those hospital staff who would benefit from having this facility close at hand.
Taking all this together, I attach moderate weight to the economic benefits of
both schemes.
Other benefits claimed by the appellant - townscape
111. The appellant argued that enhancement to the townscape should be counted
as a benefit of both schemes. On my assessment, that argument does not arise
in relation to the Appeal A scheme because I have found that it would cause
significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. I have concluded
that the Appeal B scheme would add to the quality of the area. However, that
was a balanced judgement which took account of positive and negative
features of the design. Moreover, the Framework makes clear that
development that is not well designed should be refused. The achievement of
good design is therefore a policy requirement. Consequently, I do not consider
that townscape enhancement should be counted as a freestanding benefit in
the case of Appeal B.
Other concerns raised by interested parties
112. Many of the concerns raised by interested parties, both orally and in written
representations, have been covered above. Concerns were also raised relating
to density, space standards and the flexibility of the units, transport, traffic and
parking and fire safety.
Density
113. It was argued that the density of the scheme would be in excess of 200
dwellings per hectare, which would be far higher than would be expected in a
suburban area such as this. Policy DM11 states that the density of new housing
developments will, in most cases, not exceed 40 dwellings per hectare. The
policy allows for exceptions where the site enjoys good access to services via
public transport, walking and cycling and where the surrounding townscape has
sufficient capacity to accommodate developments of higher density.
114. In 2018 the Council recognised that Policy DM11, together with Policy DM13
(which seeks to limit building heights to 12m outside the town centre), could
act to restrict the capacity of housing sites in a way that could conflict with the
objective of optimising housing delivery on such sites. These policies remain as
part of the development plan and must be taken into account accordingly. That
said, the fact that the Council has expressly acknowledged a conflict with
national policy in relation to housing delivery should be taken into account
when considering the weight to be attached to any conflicts with these polices.
115. For the reasons given above, I consider that the surrounding townscape
does not have the capacity to accommodate the Appeal A scheme. The Appeal
A proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM11. However, I have
concluded that the surrounding townscape could accommodate the Appeal B
scheme. Moreover, I consider that, whilst the site is not in the town centre, it is
in a reasonably accessible location. Consequently, the Appeal B proposal would
accord with Policy DM11. I acknowledge that the density of this scheme would
be high compared with surrounding residential areas. However, I have not
identified any significant harm as a result of that density, for example in
relation to the living conditions of nearby residents.
116. Both appeal schemes would be in excess of 12m in height and would conflict
with Policy DM13.
Space standards and the flexibility of the units
117. The majority of the proposed units would be Guild Living Residences. The
Council and the appellant agree that these units would accord with Nationally
Described Space Standards. Although some of the units would have an area of
private amenity space, most would not. Provision of private amenity space
would be a policy requirement for Class C3 flats. However, these units have
been purpose designed as part of an extra care development which has an
emphasis on communal amenity spaces, both outdoors and indoors. I consider
that the approach to the provision of amenity space is appropriate to the needs
of future occupiers.
118. The SoCG identifies that the Guild Care Suites and Guild Care Residences
would not meet the minimum space standards. The Guild Care Suites would not
include kitchen areas. The Guild Care Residences would have a small
kitchenette area. Residents could either take meals within their residence or in
communal spaces. The SoCG notes that these units would be similar to those
that would be provided within a care home. They would generally be occupied
by residents with higher care needs who would not be cooking for themselves.
119. Interested parties drew attention to Policy DM21, which contains criteria for
specialised forms of residential accommodation. One of these is that the
design is sufficiently flexible to accommodate conversion to other appropriate
uses in the event that the need for the permitted use declines. In the light of
the evidence on the growing need for extra care housing, this seems like an
unlikely scenario. In any event, the policy allows for alternative uses to be
either residential or non-residential. I do not consider that lack of flexibility
should be regarded as a significant factor in these appeals. Accordingly, having
regard to my conclusions on the need for extra care accommodation and
concerns about overprovision discussed above, I find that the proposals would
accord with Policy DM21.
120. I conclude that, for both appeals, the standard of accommodation would be
appropriate to the needs of the intended occupiers.
Transport, traffic and parking
121. The County highways authority has agreed the level of parking proposed for
the development and has advised that existing parking restrictions in the
locality would avoid any issues with illegal parking in the surrounding area. The
effect of generated traffic on specific road junctions has been modelled and the
County highways authority has accepted that the local highway network would
not be adversely affected. I see no reason to take a different view on these
matters.
122. The occupiers of No 40 Woodcote Green Road, which adjoins the site, have
drawn attention to the proximity of the proposed new access road to their
driveway. The concern is that vehicles slowing to enter the appeal site could
conflict with vehicles emerging from No 40. However, I saw that there is good
visibility along Woodcote Green Road at this point. I do not consider that the
proposed layout would be unduly hazardous.
123. As discussed above, the proposals would prioritise pedestrian movement
within the site and would create an improved pedestrian route from Woodcote
Green Road to the hospital. Secure covered cycle parking for residents, staff
and visitors would be located throughout the site. The proposed improvements
to transport infrastructure would include bus stop improvements and footway
widening, provision of real time passenger information and a contribution to
the installation of vehicle activated signs on Woodcote Green Road. These
matters would be secured through the s106 Agreements. The Agreements
would also provide for establishment of a car club and car club parking. In
addition, the implementation of a travel plan would be secured by a condition.
I consider that, for both appeals, opportunities to promote walking, cycling and
public transport use have been identified and appropriate transport measures
would be incorporated in the proposals.
Fire safety
124. Interested parties questioned the appropriateness of providing extra care
accommodation in multi-storey buildings. The applications were supported by a
Fire Strategy and the SoCG states that the fire safety provisions that will be
required as part of the Building Regulations approval process have been
considered at the planning stage, such that the scheme provides no
impediments to meeting the relevant requirements. In answer to my questions,
the appellant30 explained that the proposed approach to fire safety would
encompass both physical design measures and staff training. Accordingly, the
appellant suggested that the submission and approval of a Fire Safety
Management Plan should be the subject of a planning condition. Subject to that
condition, I consider that, for both appeals, fire safety has been appropriately
considered at the planning stage.
Conclusions – Appeal A
Heritage assets – application of the Framework
125. I have concluded that there would be some minor harm to the character and
appearance of the Chalk Lane Conservation Area through development in its
setting. I have also found that there would be some harm to the settings of the
following listed buildings:
• The Hylands (Grade II*);
• Hylands House (Grade II*);
• West Hylands (Grade II); and
• Nos 67 and 69 Dorking Road (Grade II).
The degree of harm to the significance of the conservation area and each listed
building would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Even so, any
harm to a designated heritage asset is a matter of considerable importance and
weight. The balancing exercise set out in paragraph 202 of the Framework
requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.
30 My questions were put to Mr Serginson, Development Director.
126. For the reasons given above, I attach significant weight to each of the
following public benefits:
• contribution to housing land supply;
• provision of extra care accommodation; and
• use of previously developed land.
Moreover, I attach moderate weight to the provision of affordable housing and
moderate weight to economic benefits.
127. I conclude that, taken together, the public benefits would be sufficient to
outweigh the harm to the heritage assets. The conclusion is the same, whether
the assets are considered individually or collectively. It follows that there would
be no conflict with the policies of the Framework, as they relate to the historic
environment.
The development plan
128. The proposal would conflict with Policy CS5 because, although it would
make efficient use of land, it would not reinforce local distinctiveness, nor
would it complement the attractive characteristics of the borough. Policy CS5
also seeks to protect the settings of heritage assets. The proposal would cause
harm to the settings of heritage assets as discussed above. However, in this
respect Policy CS5 is inconsistent with the Framework because it does not allow
for public benefits to be weighed against harm. I therefore attach limited
weight to the conflict with this part of Policy CS5 and greater weight to the
outcome of the balancing exercise set out in the Framework.
129. The proposal would accord with Policy CS8 which emphasises the use of
previously developed land for housing. Although the proposal would not provide
the level of affordable housing required by Policy CS9, the policy allows for
viability to be taken into account. On that basis there would be no conflict with
policy CS9.
130. The proposal would accord with Policy DM5 which seeks to avoid significant
loss of trees, hedgerows or other landscape features unless suitable
replacements are proposed.
131. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM9 in that it would not make a
positive contribution to the Borough’s visual character and appearance. It
would accord with some elements of Policy DM10, for example in relation to
protecting the amenities of neighbours and providing an appropriate layout and
access arrangements. However, it would not represent good design because
the scale, height and form of development proposed would be harmful to the
character and local distinctiveness of the area. It would therefore conflict with
the policy as a whole.
132. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM11 which seeks to limit the density
of new housing unless certain exceptions apply. In this case, those exceptions
would not apply because the surrounding townscape does not have the
capacity to accommodate the density proposed. Nevertheless, this is a policy
which is likely to have the effect of restricting housing delivery on sites that are
suitable for housing. I therefore attach limited weight to the conflict with this
policy and greater weight to the policies of the Framework relating to design,
housing delivery and reuse of previously developed land. For the same reasons,
I attach limited weight to the conflict with Policy DM13 which sets a maximum
height limit of 12m in locations outside Epsom Town Centre.
133. The proposal would accord with Policy DM21 which states that permission
will be granted for specialised forms of residential accommodation where there
is evidence of need, where there will not be overprovision of a particular type
of accommodation and where the design would allow conversion to other uses
(residential or non-residential) in the event that the need for the permitted use
declines.
134. Notwithstanding that there would be compliance with some policies,
I consider that the policy conflicts that I have identified are of sufficient
importance that the proposal should be regarded as being in conflict with the
development plan as a whole. In particular, this is due to the degree of harm
that I have identified in relation to Policies CS5, DM9 and DM10.
Other material considerations
135. The approach to decision making set out in paragraph 11(d) of the
Framework applies because of the HDT position and also because of the
absence of a five year housing land supply. In these circumstances, the
Framework states that the development plan policies which are most important
for determining the appeal are deemed to be out of date. Planning permission
should be granted, unless policies that protect areas or assets of particular
importance provide a clear reason for refusal or unless any adverse impacts of
granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits, assessed against the policies in the Framework as a whole.
136. Designated heritage assets, including listed buildings and conservation
areas, are assets of particular importance for these purposes. However, for the
reasons given above, the application of the Framework’s policies for the historic
environment do not provide a reason for refusing the proposal.
137. The proposal would provide a number of benefits. The Framework sets out
the objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. I attach significant
weight to the contribution that the appeal scheme would make to this
objective. The Framework also states that planning policies should reflect the
size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community,
including those who require affordable housing, older people and people with
disabilities. The proposal would contribute to meeting such needs. For the
reasons given above, I attach significant weight to the provision of extra care
accommodation and moderate weight to the provision of affordable housing.
138. The Framework seeks to make effective use of land and emphasises the
value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other
identified needs. I attach significant weight to the contribution that the appeal
scheme would make to this objective. The Framework also seeks to support
economic growth and I attach moderate weight to the benefits of the proposal
in this regard.
139. On the other hand, the Framework states that the creation of high quality,
beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the
planning and development process should achieve and that planning decisions
should ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area. For the
reasons given above, I do not consider that the proposal would meet these
objectives. The Framework goes on to say that developments should be
sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built
environment and landscape setting. In this case, I have concluded that the
proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of
the area.
140. The Framework seeks to optimise the potential of development sites to
accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mix of development.
There is no objection to the mix of uses proposed here. However, in my view,
the amount of development proposed would go significantly beyond optimising
the potential of the site. The Framework states that development that is not
well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design
policies and government guidance on design. In this case there are no detailed
local design policies. I have had regard to the National Design Guide and have
concluded that, viewed in the round, the Appeal A proposal would not amount
to good design.
141. My overall assessment is that, in this case, the failure to achieve good
design is a matter of such importance and weight that the adverse effects of
granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework, taken as a
whole.
Overall conclusion on Appeal A
142. The proposal would be in conflict with the development plan. I have taken
account of the benefits that would flow from the proposal and have assessed
the scheme against the policies in the Framework, taken as a whole. Neither
these considerations, nor any other material considerations, indicate that the
appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development
plan. It follows that the appeal should be dismissed.
Conclusions – Appeal B
Heritage assets - application of the Framework
143. The heritage assets that would be affected would be the same as for Appeal
A. In each case the level of harm would be lower, due to the reduced height
and mass of the Appeal B scheme compared with the Appeal A scheme.
However, I would still characterise the harm as being at the lower end of less
than substantial harm to the significance of each heritage asset.
144. The benefit of using previously developed land would be the same. There
would be some reduction in the other public benefits, compared with the
Appeal A scheme, proportionate to the reduced number of units. Nevertheless,
I consider that the broad order of public benefits would be similar and I attach
the same weights as for Appeal A.
145. I conclude that, taken together, the public benefits would be sufficient to
outweigh the harm to the heritage assets. The conclusion is the same, whether
the assets are considered individually or collectively. It follows that there would
be no conflict with the policies of the Framework, as they relate to the historic
environment.
The development plan
146. The proposal would accord with Policy CS5 insofar as it would represent high
quality design that would create attractive and safe environments, complement
the attractive characteristics of the Borough and make efficient use of land.
Policy CS5 also seeks to protect the settings of heritage assets. The proposal
would cause some harm to the settings of heritage assets as discussed above.
However, in this respect Policy CS5 is inconsistent with the Framework because
it does not allow for public benefits to be weighed against harm. I therefore
attach limited weight to the conflict with this part of Policy CS5 and greater
weight to the outcome of the balancing exercise set out in the Framework.
147. The proposal would accord with Policy CS8 which emphasises the use of
previously developed land for housing. Although the proposal would not provide
the level of affordable housing required by Policy CS9, the policy allows for
viability to be taken into account. On that basis there would be no conflict with
policy CS9.
148. The proposal would accord with Policy DM5 which seeks to avoid significant
loss of trees, hedgerows or other landscape features unless suitable
replacements are proposed.
149. The proposal would accord with Policy DM9 in that it would make a positive
contribution to the Borough’s visual character and appearance. It would not
accord with some elements of Policy DM10, for example in relation to
respecting prevailing development typologies and densities. It would accord
with other elements of the policy, for example in protecting the amenities of
neighbours and providing an appropriate layout and access arrangements. My
overall assessment is that the proposal would represent good design that would
contribute to the character of the area. Viewed in the round, it would accord
with the policy as a whole.
150. The proposal would accord with Policy DM11, which seeks to limit the density
of new housing unless certain exceptions apply. In this case, the exceptions do
apply because the site has good access to services and facilities and the
surrounding townscape has the capacity to accommodate the density proposed.
151. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM13, which sets a maximum height
limit of 12m in locations outside Epsom Town Centre. Nevertheless, this is a
policy which is likely to have the effect of restricting housing delivery on sites
that are suitable for housing. I therefore attach limited weight to the conflict
with this policy and greater weight to the policies of the Framework relating to
design, housing delivery and reuse of previously developed land.
152. The proposal would accord with Policy DM21 which states that permission
will be granted for specialised forms of residential accommodation where there
is evidence of need, there will not be overprovision of a particular type of
accommodation and the design would allow conversion to other uses
(residential or non-residential) in the event that the need for the permitted use
declines.
153. Notwithstanding the fact that there would be conflict with some policies,
I consider that the proposal would accord with the development plan in several
important respects. The policy conflicts that I have identified are not of
sufficient importance to outweigh the matters where compliance would be
achieved. I therefore conclude that the proposal would accord with the
development plan as a whole.
Other material considerations
154. Although there would be harm to the settings of some designated heritage
assets, that harm would be outweighed by public benefits. Consequently, there
would be no conflict with the policies of the Framework as they relate to the
historic environment. I consider that the broad order of public benefits relating
to housing supply, extra care accommodation, affordable housing, use of
previously developed land and economic benefits would be similar to those of
the Appeal A scheme. In these respects, the proposal would support policies
contained in the Framework.
155. Moreover, the proposal would add to the overall quality of the area. It would
be sympathetic to local character and would establish a strong sense of place.
This would optimise the potential of the site to accommodate an appropriate
amount and mix of uses. I conclude that the Appeal B scheme would represent
good design, as that term is used in the Framework.
Overall conclusion on Appeal B
156. The proposal would accord with the development plan. Taken together, the
other material considerations identified above weigh in favour of the appeal.
There are no other material considerations that indicate that the appeal should
be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. It follows
that the appeal should be allowed.
Conditions for Appeal B
157. The Council and the appellant submitted a schedule of suggested conditions,
which I have considered in the light of guidance on conditions in NPPG. These
were mostly agreed, although there were some differences which were
discussed at the Inquiry. I have made some adjustments to detailed wording,
for consistency and clarity. However, the substance of the conditions I shall
impose reflects the schedule that was discussed at the Inquiry.
158. Conditions 14 to 19 require matters to be approved before the
commencement of development. This is necessary either because the
conditions address environmental impacts that would arise during the
construction phase or because the conditions relate to aspects of the design
that would need to be resolved at the outset. The appellant has agreed that it
would be necessary to impose pre-commencement conditions.
159. Condition 2 requires that development is to be caried out in accordance with
the approved plans, in the interests of clarity. Condition 3 requires that
construction is to be carried out in accordance with the Construction
Environmental Management Plan and noise report that were submitted with the
application, in the interests of protecting the living conditions of nearby
residents. I have adopted the appellant’s suggested wording because it is not
necessary to refer to specific mitigation measures in the condition, given that
the measures in the submitted documents are to be implemented as a whole.
As noted above, the submitted plans are inconsistent insofar as they relate to
four balconies that would be located on part of Building A. Condition 4 is
needed to resolve that inconsistency by requiring further details to be approved
before any balconies are constructed in these positions.
160. Condition 5 requires an archaeological assessment to be made, in order to
protect the archaeological potential of the site. Condition 6 sets out
arrangements for dealing with any unforeseen site contamination, in the
interests of managing risks of pollution. Condition 7 requires implementation of
measures to protect air quality during construction. Condition 8 requires
submission of details of water efficiency, in the interests of sustainable use of
resources. Condition 9 controls emissions from boilers in the interests of
protecting air quality. Condition 10 sets out tree protection measures in order
to protect the character and appearance of the area. Condition 11 requires the
arrangements for testing generators and smoke extract fans to be approved, in
the interests of protecting the living conditions of nearby residents.
161. Condition 12 would limit the proposed retail units to retail use, in the
interests of maintaining the integrated mix of uses proposed in the application.
The hours of use would also be controlled, in the interests of protecting the
living conditions of future occupiers of the appeal site and nearby residents. On
grounds of highway safety, the suggested condition would also have prevented
the sale of food from the retail units. I do not think that this restriction would
be justified. The retail units would be small and are likely to be used by people
who would be at the site (or the adjoining hospital) in any event, as residents,
patients, staff members or visitors. Condition 13 would limit the nursery to use
for that purpose, in order to maintain the integrated mix of uses proposed in
the application.
162. Condition 14 requires the submission of a Contamination Safeguarding
Scheme in the interests of managing the risks of pollution of groundwater.
Condition 15 requires the submission of a Surface Water Drainage Scheme in
the interests of managing risks of surface water flooding and pollution.
Condition 16 requires the submission of a Construction Transport Management
Plan in the interests of highway safety. Condition 17 requires the submission of
an Arboricultural Method Statement to protect trees during construction in the
interests of the character and appearance of the area. Condition 18 requires
submission of finished site levels in the interests of the character and
appearance of the area and to ensure safe and convenient movement around
the site. The suggested condition also included submission of finished floor
levels of buildings. However, that would not be necessary because those details
are shown on the approved plans listed in Condition 2.
163. Condition 19 requires submission of a Site Investigation and Risk
Assessment Report and a Remediation Strategy in order to protect future
occupiers from any contaminants that may be present on the site. Condition 20
requires assessment of the potential for overheating within the proposed
accommodation so that opportunities for passive cooling can be taken, in the
interests of sustainable development. Condition 21 requires submission of
materials and other building details in the interests of the character and
appearance of the area. Condition 22 requires submission of a Security
Management Plan in the interests of community safety. As discussed above,
the appellant’s approach to fire safety depends on both physical features of the
proposed buildings and staff training. Condition 23 requires submission of a
Fire Safety Management Plan which would be one element of the approach to
fire safety. This is necessary to ensure that fire safety has been appropriately
considered at the planning stage.
164. Condition 24 requires submission of details of hard and soft landscaping in
the interests of the character and appearance of the area and biodiversity.
Condition 25 requires submission of measures to protect the privacy of
adjacent properties from potential overlooking from the proposed Sensory
Garden. Condition 26 restricts the use of roofs as amenity areas, other than
those areas designed for that purpose. These conditions are needed in the
interests of protecting the living conditions of nearby residents. Condition 27
requires submission of details of boundary treatments, in the interests of the
character and appearance of the area. Condition 28 requires submission of
details of acoustic fencing in the interests of protecting the living conditions of
nearby residents.
165. Condition 29 requires submission of a Verification Report confirming the
successful implementation of the Remediation Strategy required by Condition
19. Condition 30 requires submission of a Verification Report confirming the
successful implementation of the drainage system, details of which would be
approved under Condition 15. Both conditions are necessary for the same
reasons as the previous conditions they relate to. Condition 31 requires
submission of evidence that the ecological mitigation and enhancement
measures described in the application documents have been implemented. This
is necessary in the interests of biodiversity.
166. Conditions 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 relate (respectively) to submission of
details of cycle parking, submission of details of car parking and electric vehicle
charging, implementation of the access arrangements described in the
application documents, footway widening, submission of a Car Park
Management Plan and submission of a Refuse, Deliveries and Servicing
Management Plan. These conditions are needed in the interests of highway
safety and promoting sustainable transport choices.
167. Condition 38 requires submission of details of external lighting to protect the
character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of nearby
residents. Condition 39 requires that the nursery and retail units should meet
the BREEAM “very good” standard in the interests of sustainable development.
Condition 40 provides for the hours of operation of the nursery to be controlled
in the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents. Condition 41
secures implementation of the Travel Plan submitted with the application in the
interests of promoting sustainable transport choices.
David Prentis
Inspector
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Meyric Lewis, of Counsel instructed by Amardip Healy, Chief Legal Officer,
Epsom and Ewell Borough Council
He called
Mike Kiely Mike Kiely Planning and Regeneration
BTP MBA MRTPI
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Rupert Warren, Queen’s instructed by CMS
Counsel
He called
Matthew Serginson Guild Living
BEng MRICS
Andrew Earwicker Life3A
BA PGDip RIBA ARB
Andrew Williams Define
BA(Hons) DipLA DipUD
CMLI
Tim Spencer Nexus Planning
DipTRP MRTPI
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Cllr Liz Frost Ward Councillor, Epsom and Ewell Borough
Council
Penny Lea Speaking on behalf of Marion and Lawrence Lea,
adjoining residents
Emma Ware Chair of Epsom and Ewell Conservative
Association, speaking on behalf of the Rt Hon
Chris Grayling MP
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
ID1 Opening statement for the appellant
ID2 Opening statement for the Council
ID3 Appearances for the Council
ID4 Speaking notes of Councillor Frost
ID5 Speaking notes of Ms Lea
ID6 Photographs submitted by Ms Lea
ID7 Our Locations – Guild Living
ID8 Community Infrastructure Levy Compliance Statement
ID9 Draft s106 Agreement for Appeal A (20 August 2021)
ID10 Draft s106 Agreement for Appeal B (20 August 2021)
ID11 Mr Kiely’s comments on conditions for Appeal A
ID12 Mr Kiely’s note on additional conditions (23 August 2021)
ID13 Appellant’s suggested itinerary for site visit
ID14 Agreed draft s106 Agreement for Appeal A (23 August 2021)
ID15 Agreed draft s106 Agreement for Appeal B (23 August 2021)
ID16 Plans to be attached to s106 Agreements
ID17 Mr Spencer’s note on conditions applying to Appeal B only
ID18 Mr Spencer’s comments on conditions for Appeal A
(23 August 2021)
ID19 Secretary of State’s letter about changes to the National
Planning Policy Framework (2 August 2021)
ID20 Appellant’s agreement to pre-commencement conditions
(24 August 2021)
ID21 Note on Fire Strategy by Hoare Lea (24 August 2021)
ID22 Closing submissions for the Council
ID23 Closing submission for the appellant
ID24 Monkhill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and
Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 74
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
Note of corrections to s106 Agreements since the close of the Inquiry
(3 September 2021)
Signed s106 Agreement for Appeal A (3 September 2021)
Signed s106 Agreement for Appeal B (3 September 2021)
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS FOR APPEAL B
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved plans and drawings listed below, other than where
those details are altered pursuant to the conditions of this planning
permission:
EPS001-MPI-XX-ZZ-DR-A-00-001 - SITE LOCATION PLAN & EXISTING
SITE PLAN – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-00-002 - PROPOSED SITE PLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-ZZ-DR-A-00-003 - DEMOLITION PLAN – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-00-DR-A-01-100 - LEVEL 00 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-01-DR-A-01-101 - LEVEL 01 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-02-DR-A-01-102 - LEVEL 02 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-03-DR-A-01-103 - LEVEL 03 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-04-DR-A-01-104 - LEVEL 04 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-01-105 - LEVEL 05-07 MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-RF-DR-A-01-106 - ROOF LEVEL MASTERPLAN – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-SX-DR-A-20-200 - SITE SECTIONS 1:500 – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-SX-DR-A-20-201 - BUILDING SECTION A-A ́ & B-B ́ -
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-SX-DR-A-20-202 - BUILDING SECTION C-C ́ & D-D –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-SX-DR-A-20-203 - BUILDING SECTION EE – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-SX-DR-A-20-205 - SITE SECTIONS - STREET CONTEXT –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-300 - ELEVATION 1A-1A - BUILDING A
SOUTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-301 - ELEVATION 1B-1B - BUILDING B
COURTYARD SOUTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-302 - ELEVATION 2-2 - BUILDING A
PODIUM SOUTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-303 - ELEVATION 3-3 - BUILDING A NORTH
– dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-304 - ELEVATION 4-4 - BUILDING A WEST –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-305 - ELEVATION 5-5 - BUILDING A EAST –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-306 - ELEVATION 6-6 - BUILDING A/B
SOUTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-307 - ELEVATION 7-7 - BUILDING A DROP-
OFF SOUTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-308 - ELEVATION 8-8 - BUILDING B EAST –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-309 - ELEVATION 9-9 - BUILDING B WEST –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-310 - ELEVATION 10-10 - BUILDING A/B
NORTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-311 - ELEVATION 11-11 - BUILDING B
NORTH – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-312 - ELEVATION 12-12 - BUILDING A
WEST – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-313 - ELEVATION 13-13 - BUILDING A
PODIUM EAST – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-00-DR-A-20-500 - BUILDING A - L00 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-01-DR-A-20-501 - BUILDING A - L01 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-02-DR-A-20-502 - BUILDING A - L02 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-03-DR-A-20-503 - BUILDING A - L03 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-04-DR-A-20-504 - BUILDING A - L04 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-ZZ-DR-A-20-505 - BUILDING A - L05-07 – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-AZ-RF-DR-A-20-506 - BUILDING A - ROOF LEVEL – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-00-DR-A-20-510 - BUILDING B - L00 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-01-DR-A-20-511 - BUILDING B - L01 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-02-DR-A-20-512 - BUILDING B - L02 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-03-DR-A-20-513 - BUILDING B - L03 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-04-DR-A-20-514 - BUILDING B - L04 – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-ZZ-DR-A-20-515 - BUILDING B - L05-07 – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-BZ-RF-DR-A-20-516 - BUILDING B - ROOF LEVEL – dated
05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-21-300 - TYPICAL BAY STUDY - BAY 1 - JULIET
BALCONY DETAIL – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-21-301 - TYPICAL BAY STUDY - BAY 2 - BOLT
ON BALCONY DETAIL – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-21-302 - TYPICAL BAY STUDY - BAY 3 - DROP
OFF DETAIL – dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-30-100 - TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUTS - 1 BED –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-30-101 - TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUTS - 2 BEDS –
dated 05.02.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-30-102 - TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUTS - 3 BEDS –
dated 05.01.21
EPS001-MPI-XX-XX-DR-A-30-103 - TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUTS - GCS & GCR
– dated 05.02.21
656_P_00_100 P06 - Ground Floor Masterplan – dated 02.02.21
596 _P_02_105 P02 - Roof Masterplan – dated 02.02.21
596_S_00_100 P01 - Landscape General Arrangement Sections A-A–
dated 18.01.20
596_S_00_101 P01 - Landscape General Arrangement Sections BB CC –
dated 18.01.20
3) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Construction
Environmental Management Plan, Revision 5 (prepared by Morgan
Sindall) and the Environmental Noise Survey (carried out by Hann Tucker
Associates document reference 26691/PNA1/Rev2 dated 19 December
2019). The measures set out in those documents shall be maintained as
approved throughout the construction period.
4) Notwithstanding the requirements of Condition 2, the development
hereby permitted shall not include the construction of the four balconies
shown on the following drawings which would be situated on the southern
elevation of levels 06 and 07 of Building A until full details of any
balconies in these locations (including any consequential revisions to the
floor plans of the affected units) have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority:
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-304 – ELEVATION 4-4 - BUILDING A WEST
- dated 05-02-21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-305 – ELEVATION 5-5 - BUILDING A EAST -
dated 05-02-21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-306 ELEVATION 6-6 - BUILDING A/B
SOUTH – dated 05-02-21
EPS001-MPI-XX-EL-DR-A-20-307-ELEVATION 7-7 - BUILDING A DROP-
OFF SOUTH – dated 05-02-21
EPS001-MPI-ZZ-RF-DR-A-01-106 - ROOF LEVEL MASTERPLAN – dated
05-02-21
5) The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the programme
of palaeo-environmental assessment and analysis set out in Table 9 of
Archaeology South East’s report (Reference 202181, dated October
2020).
6) If, during the implementation of the development groundworks,
contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site
(including any contamination that could present a risk to Controlled
Waters) then no further works shall be carried out until a remediation
strategy detailing how such contamination shall be dealt has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. A verification
report confirming that the remediation strategy has been implemented as
approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority prior to the first occupation of any part of the
development.
7) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted
Air Quality Assessment by Arup dated 13 January 2021, including the
proposed mitigation measures. The measures shall be maintained
throughout the construction period.
8) Details of water efficiency measures shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority prior to the first occupation of
any part of the development. The details shall show a water efficiency
standard using not more than 110 litres per person per day maximum
indoor water consumption. The measures shall be installed in accordance
with the approved details and thereafter maintained for as long as the
development is in use.
9) All non-CHP space and hot water fossil fuel (or equivalent hydrocarbon-
based fuel) boilers installed as part of the development must achieve dry
NOx emission levels equivalent to or less than 30 mg/kWh.
10) With respect to existing trees identified in the approved plans as being
retained:
a) no such tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed or otherwise
damaged without the written approval of the local planning
authority;
b) if any such tree is cut down, uprooted, destroyed or is otherwise
damaged or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place
and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted
at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning
authority; and
c) no such tree shall be pruned other than with the written approval of
the local planning authority. Any pruning shall be carried out in
accordance with British Standard 3998 (tree work) and in
accordance with the arboricultural method statement.
The tree protection provisions above shall last for a period of five years
following the first occupation of any part of the development.
11) Prior to occupation of any part of the development, the testing frequency
and times of the standby generators and smoke extraction fans shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Testing shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved
frequency and times.
12) The retail units shall be limited to the uses described in part E(a) (Display
or retail sale of goods, other than hot food) of the Use Classes Order (or
in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) and for
no other use (notwithstanding any provisions in the Use Classes Order or
the General Permitted Development Order). The retail units shall only be
open for trade between the hours of 0700 and 2100 Mondays to
Saturdays and 0800 and 2100 hours on Sundays.
13) The nursery shall be limited to a creche or day nursery use only and for
no other use (notwithstanding any provisions in the Use Classes Order or
the General Permitted Development Order or in any equivalent provisions
in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting those Orders with
or without modification). The creche or day nursery use shall be limited
to a maximum of 40 children at any one time.
14) No development shall commence until a Contamination Safeguarding
Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The Scheme shall include:
a) a site investigation, based on the Preliminary Risk Assessment, to
provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all
receptors that may be affected, including those off site;
b) the results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment
referred to in (a) shall inform an options appraisal and remediation
strategy that gives full details of the remediation measures required
and how they are to be undertaken; and
c) a verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected
in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation
strategy in (b) are complete and identifying any requirements for
longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and
arrangements for contingency action.
Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall
not be permitted other than with the written consent of the local planning
authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has
been demonstrated that there is no resulting unacceptable risk to
groundwater.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Contamination Safeguarding Scheme and shall be maintained as
approved for as long as the development is in use.
15) No development shall commence until a Surface Water Drainage Scheme
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The design must satisfy the Sustainable Drainage System
Hierarchy and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical
Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems, the National Planning Policy
Framework and Ministerial Statement on Sustainable Drainage Systems.
The Scheme shall include:
a) evidence that infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground
will be confined to those parts of the site where it has been
demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to
Controlled Waters;
b) evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the
1 in 30 and 1 in 100 year (+40% allowance for climate change)
storm events during all stages of the development (associated
discharge rates and storage volumes shall be provided using a
maximum discharge rate equivalent of 52l/s);
c) detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include a
finalised drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements,
pipe diameters, levels, and long and cross sections of each element
including details of any flow restrictions and maintenance/risk
reducing features (such as silt traps or inspection chambers);
d) a plan showing exceedance flows (during rainfall greater than
design events or during blockage) and how property on and off site
would be protected;
e) details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance
regimes for the drainage system; and
f) details of how the drainage system will be protected during
construction and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the
development site will be managed before the drainage system is
operational.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Surface Water Drainage Scheme and shall be maintained as approved for
as long as the development is in use.
16) No development shall commence until a Construction Transport
Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The Plan shall 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 behind any visibility zones;
f) HGV deliveries and hours of operation;
g) vehicle routing;
h) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway;
i) before and after condition surveys of the highway and measures to
enable the repair of any damage caused during construction; and
j) on-site turning for construction vehicles.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Construction Transport Management Plan which shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period.
17) No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method Statement
(detailing all aspects of construction and staging of works) and a Tree
Protection Plan in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 (or later
revision) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The Statement shall include details of:
a) all underground services within the root protection areas (RPA) of
trees and measures for construction methods to prevent root
damage;
b) all level changes within any RPA and measures and/or construction
methods to prevent root damage;
c) all construction activity both above and below ground within any
RPA and measures and/or construction methods to prevent root
damage;
d) all hard surface treatments within any RPA and measures and/or
construction methods to prevent root damage;
e) a Tree Protection Scheme which shall include details of the
measures to protect retained trees during construction and
arrangements for a pre-commencement site meeting after the
installation of the Scheme between the local planning authority and
the developer's project arboriculturist to allow inspection and
verification of the protection measures; and
f) a programme of arboricultural supervision and reporting of
protection measures to the local planning authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
Method Statement and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be
brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until fencing
has been erected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan.
Within any area fenced in accordance with this condition, such areas shall
be kept clear and nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of above or
below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations shall
be made, nor shall any fires be lit. Such protection measures shall be
maintained in-situ and not moved or removed until all construction has
finished, and all equipment, materials and machinery are removed from
site.
18) No development shall commence until details of existing and proposed
finished site levels and finished external surface levels have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details.
19) No development shall commence until a Site Investigation and Risk
Assessment Report and a Remediation Strategy have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Report and
Strategy shall include:
a) details of the existence, extent and concentrations of any made
ground/fill, ground gas and contaminants (including asbestos and
hydrocarbons) with the potential to impact sensitive receptors on
and off site; and
b) where ground/groundwater contamination, filled ground and/or
ground gas is found to present unacceptable risks, a detailed
scheme of remediation and risk management measures.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Report and Strategy and shall be maintained as approved for as long as
the development is in use.
20) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until an assessment of the risk of overheating has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment shall
be undertaken with dynamic simulation, based on CIBSE TM59:2017 and
adopting weather files as indicated in CIBSE TM49:2014 or any other
methodology that may replace it. If overheating is present on the
assessment, Strategic Mitigation Measures to mitigate the problem shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the Strategic
Mitigation Measures and shall be maintained as approved for as long as
the development is in use.
21) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until details of the external appearance of that building have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
details shall include:
a) samples of any external cladding materials and/or any railings or
balconies which shall be made available for inspection on site;
b) a sample of each of the proposed brick finishes and a 1m x 1m
panel which shall be constructed on site and shall illustrate the
proposed brick in colour, texture, module, bond, pointing and
mortar colour (to be retained on site as a model during the works);
c) section drawings through all parapets and roof edges (including the
boundaries of roof terraces) at a scale of 1:20;
d) section drawings through doors, windows (including reveals, soffits,
lintels and sills) and balconies at a scale of 1:20; and
e) details of all landscape furniture.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details and samples and shall be maintained as approved for as long as
the development is in use.
22) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until a Security Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The developer shall consult with
Surrey Police in preparing the Plan. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved Plan. No part of the
development shall be occupied until the Plan's provisions have been
implemented with respect to that part of the development. The Plan's
provisions shall be maintained as approved for as long as the
development is in use.
23) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until a Fire Safety Management Plan has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved Plan. No part of the
development shall be occupied until the Plan's provisions have been
implemented with respect to that part of the development. The Plan's
provisions shall be maintained as approved for as long as the
development is in use.
24) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until a Scheme of Hard and Soft Landscaping has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Scheme shall
include:
a) details of all existing trees on the land and details of those to be
retained;
b) the location and species of plants and trees to be planted on the
site;
c) the proposed times of planting, which should be no later than the
first planting season following the completion of the development;
and
d) the arrangements for aftercare over a period of five years.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
Scheme.
All trees and plants shall be maintained for five years following planting
and any that die, are removed or damaged or become diseased within
that period shall be replaced in the same position in the next planting
season with trees/plants of similar size and species to those originally
required to be planted, unless the local planning authority gives written
consent to any variation.
25) The Sensory Garden at the second floor level of Building A shall not be
brought into use until measures to protect the privacy of adjacent
properties (which may include temporary and permanent measures) have
been implemented in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If at any time
the approved measures to protect the privacy of adjacent properties are
not in place the use of the Sensory Garden shall cease until such time as
the approved measures are reinstated.
26) Other than the Sensory Garden at the second floor level of Building A
and the Residents’ Private Terrace on the roof of Building B, access to the
roof areas on both buildings shall be restricted to maintenance and repair
purposes only and those roofs shall not be used for any amenity
proposes.
27) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until details of all proposed walls, fences and other boundary treatments
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The boundary treatments shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development
for residential purposes and shall be retained as approved for as long as
the development is in use.
28) The construction of any building above ground level shall not commence
until details of an acoustic fence along the site boundary with numbers 40
and 46 Woodcote Green Road have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The acoustic fence shall be
constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the first
occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained as
approved for as long as the development is in use.
29) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until a
Verification Report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the
approved Remediation Strategy (required by condition 19) and the
effectiveness of that remediation has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Verification Report shall
include:
a) results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with
the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met; and
b) a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan for monitoring
pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency
action.
The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved Verification Report and shall be maintained
as approved for as long as the development is in use.
30) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until a
Verification Report carried out by a qualified drainage engineer
demonstrating that the drainage system has been properly implemented
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The Verification Report shall:
a) demonstrate that the drainage system has been constructed in
accordance with the agreed scheme;
b) provide details of the maintenance plan;
c) provide details of any management company; and
d) state the national grid reference of any key drainage elements
(surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices
and outfalls).
The approved measures shall be maintained for as long as the
development is in use.
31) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority that the development has been carried out in
accordance with:
a) the protection, mitigation and enhancement measures detailed in
the Ecological Impact Assessment, dated 18 January 2021;
b) the recommendations detailed in the Preliminary Roost Assessment,
dated 11 May 2020; and
c) the approved timetable detailed in the ecological assessment and
plan.
The approved measures shall be maintained for as long as the
development is in use.
32) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
details of cycling facilities for staff and visitors to the site have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
details shall include:
a) secure parking for bicycles within the site;
b) facilities within the site for cyclists to change into and out of cycling
equipment and to shower; and
c) facilities within the site for cyclists to store cycling equipment.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
details and shall be maintained as approved for as long as the
development is in use.
33) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved
plans for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may
enter and leave the site in forward gear.
20% of the proposed parking spaces shall be provided with a fast charge
socket and an additional 20% shall be provided with the infrastructure
required for electric vehicle charging in accordance with a scheme that
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
plans and details and shall be maintained as approved for as long as the
development is in use.
34) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
the vehicular access arrangements have been completed. The
arrangements shall include:
a) two vehicular accesses to Woodcote Green Road, including visibility
zones clear of any obstruction over 0.6m high, in general
accordance with drawing B/GLEPSOM.1/01 Rev A;
b) a pedestrian inter-visibility splay measuring 2m by 2m on each side
of each access to Woodcote Green Road (the depth measured from
the back of the footway and the widths outwards from the edges of
the access and the visibility splays) which shall be clear of any
obstruction to visibility between 0.6m and 2m in height above
ground level;
c) modification of the existing vehicular access to Epsom General
Hospital from Woodcote Green Road in accordance with drawing
ESP001-ASD-SZ-00-DR-L-000101-P01; and
d) ‘No Entry’ signing and ‘No Entry’ markings provided at the site
egress and ‘Entry’ signing and ‘One Way’ markings within the site
ingress in accordance with a scheme that has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved
vehicular access arrangements and shall be maintained as approved for
as long as the development is in use, including keeping all visibility
zones/splays clear of any obstruction.
35) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
the footway on Woodcote Green Road has been widened to 2m wide
along the south eastern boundary of the application site in accordance
with a scheme that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved scheme and shall be maintained as
approved for as long as the development is in use.
36) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until a
Car Park Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved Plan and its provisions
shall be maintained as approved for as long as the development is in use.
37) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until a
Refuse, Deliveries and Servicing Management Plan has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development
shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Plan and its
provisions shall be maintained as approved for as long as the
development is in use.
38) No part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until
details of all external lighting have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include the
location, height, type and direction of light sources, means of controlling
light spillage and intensity of illumination. The development shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved lighting details and shall
not be altered, other than for routine maintenance, for as long as the
development is in use.
39) The development shall accord with the sustainability principles set out
within the submitted Energy and Sustainability Document (Revision 5),
dated 3 February 2021. No part of the development shall be occupied or
brought into use until evidence has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority that the nursery and retail areas
within the development have achieved BREEAM “very good” (or any such
national measure of sustainability that replaces this). The nursery and
retail units shall not be occupied until a Certificate has been issued
certifying that the BREEAM standard has been achieved for that unit. Any
measures necessary to maintain the designed BREEAM performance shall
be maintained as approved for as long as the development is in use.
40) The nursery shall not be occupied or brought into use until details of the
hours of operation of the facility have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be
operated in accordance with the approved hours of operation for as long
as the nursery is in use.
41) The approved Travel Plan (February 2021) shall be implemented upon
first occupation of the site. All occupiers and users of the development
shall be subject to the provisions of the Travel Plan. The Travel Plan shall
be implemented as approved.
End of schedule of conditions