"This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission

of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery

Office Crown Copyright.Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution

or Civil proceedings. Guildford Borough Council,

13/P/02216 77 - 81 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4UH

Not To Scale

Licence No. 100019625, 2013"

Print Date: 20/08/14

Copyright GBC 2014

This map is for identifcation purposes only and should not be relied upon for accuracy

1234

56

7

4

Hillside Mews

5

6

1

2

3

13 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 3413 to 34

1 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 121 to 12

Gas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterGas MeterHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouse

LBLBLBLBLBLBLBLBLB

Pembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke HousePembroke House

The MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe MewsThe Mews

ElElElElElElElElEl

31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m31.3m

Sub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub Sta

Bus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus DepotBus Depot

DepotDepotDepotDepotDepotDepotDepotDepotDepot

CentreCentreCentreCentreCentreCentreCentreCentreCentre

31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m31.4m

BusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessBusinessBusiness

Sub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaSub StaElElElElElElElElEl

31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m31.6m

HouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouseHouse

Dapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune CroftDapdune Croft

RexRexRexRexRexRexRexRexRex

RiversideRiversideRiversideRiversideRiversideRiversideRiversideRiversideRiverside

Design HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign HouseDesign House

TankTankTankTankTankTankTankTankTank

13/P/02216 – 77 – 81 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford

N

Not to scale

1

App No: 13/P/02216 Type: F 8 Wk Deadline: 24/03/2014 Appn Type: Full Application Case Officer: Kelly Jethwa Parish: Friary & St. Nicolas Ward: Friary & St. Nicolas Agent : Miss Sterry

Vail Williams LLP 2 Station View Guildford Surrey GU1 4JY

Applicant: MC Nominees Ltd c/o Agent c/o agent

Location: 77-83 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4UH Proposal: Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 29 flats, 10 x 1

bed, 15 x 2 bed and 4 x 3 bed (Use class C3) and 431 sq m of Office space (Use class B1) (amended plans received 08/05/2014 alterations to materials, elevations and size).

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters of support have been received, contrary to the officer's recommendation. Site description. The site is located within the Guildford urban area, the town centre parking boundary, the Corridor of the River Wey, an Area of Floodplain and flood zones two and three. It is also adjoins and is within the setting of a conservation area (River Wey Navigations) and is within the 400m-5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area. The surrounding area has a number of mixed uses, with both residential flats and houses as well as warehouse and office buildings. There are a number of utilitarian buildings on the site, including a warehouse, a three storey office block and several single storey buildings, all with either B1 (2,139 sq m) or B8 uses (804 sq m). The River Wey and towpath lie immediately to the east of the site and there are two vehicular accesses on to Walnut Tree Close; with a row of semi-detached Victorian houses between them. Directly opposite the site across the road is a block of flats and on the opposite side of the river is a bus station (Leas Road) and a two storey commercial building (Pembroke House). There are flats directly to the south of the site at Wey View Court fronting Walnut Tree Close with a large car parking area to the rear facing the river. There is further warehousing to the north with residential houses in front of these facing onto Walnut Tree Close. Proposal. Demolition of the existing buildings and erection of 29 flats, 10 x one bed, 15 x two bed and 4 x three bed (Use class C3) and 431 sq m of Office space (Use class B1) (amended plans received 08/05/2014 alterations to materials, elevations and size). Amended plans were received to reduce the bulk and mass of the blocks and increase spacing, improve the design of the infill Block F on Walnut Tree Close, with changes in the housing mix and car parking layout.

2

Site area: 0.37 hectares Office Maximum parking standard: 14.3 Number of car parking spaces: 7 Parking provision 48 percent of maximum parking standard Cycle parking spaces: 4 Residential Density approximately: 78 dwellings per hectare Affordable units: 10 (34.5 percent of total) Number of car parking spaces: 46 (incl. one car club space and one accessible) Maximum parking standard: 40.5 spaces for the flats 10 x one bedroom at one space per unit = 10 car parking spaces 15 x two bedroom at 1.5 spaces per unit = 22.5 car parking spaces 4 x three bedroom at two spaces per unit = 8 car parking spaces Parking provision 113.5 percent of maximum parking standard Cycle parking: 41 Numbers of bedrooms: 52 Block A Open market housing: 6 x two bed flats and one x three bed flats Block B Open market housing: 4 x two bed flats and two x three bed flats Block C Open market housing: 5 x two bed flats and one x three bed flats Block D Affordable housing 6 x one bed flats Block F Affordable housing 4 x one bed flats Office Maximum parking standard: 14.3 Number of car parking spaces: 7 Parking provision 48 percent of maximum parking standard Cycle parking spaces: 4 Block E office - 431 sq m floor space The submitted plans show a raised walkway linking blocks A to E. Relevant planning history. 13/P/00295 - Demolition of 77-83 & 99-101 Walnut Tree Close and all buildings to rear of 77-111 Walnut Tree Close. Erection of five 3-storey blocks of flats (four with basement level parking) containing 35 flats in total across the site, and one 3-storey office block, with associated parking, access layout and landscaping, Refused 23.05.2013 for the following reasons:

3

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its extensive footprint, height, scale, design, detailing and the relationship and proximity of blocks A, B and C to the River Wey fails to respect and is harmful to the setting of the Wey Navigation Conservation Area and the Corridor of the River Wey. As such it is contrary to policies HE7 and G11 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007) and paragraphs 131-133 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and English Heritage guidance 'The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011'.

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its height, scale, bulk, mass, footprint and design

fails to respect the existing townscape of the surrounding area and results in an overdevelopment of the site. In particular block F, by virtue of its design, bulk, mass and height would appear discordant within the streetscene and immediate surroundings. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G5(1-7) and G5(9) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007), paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) and the Guildford Borough Landscape Character Assessment: Townscape Assessment 2007.

3. The proposed development, by virtue of its height and proximity to the rear gardens of 89-

97 Walnut Tree Close, would have an overbearing impact on these amenity areas. Furthermore, there would be a loss of privacy to the occupants of these houses as a result of the direct overlooking from the proposed flats in Block B. In addition, the cumulative impact of the heights of block C and D would result in a loss of light and an overbearing and unneighbourly impact on 85-87 Walnut Tree Close. There would also be a loss of privacy to these properties from the proposed flats in Block D. As such the proposal is contrary to policies G1(3) and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007).

4. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted as part of this application fails to comply with the

requirements set out in paragraph 9 of the Technical Guide to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and does not provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy G1(6) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007) and paragraph 102 of the NPPF.

There were three further reasons in relation to planning obligations and the Thames Basin SPA. Nearby planning applications: Student Accommodation 14/P/00253 - Unigate Dairy, Walnut Tree Close, Approved 20.06.2014 Residential 13/P/01829 - 170 Walnut Tree Close, Approved 03.04.2014 14/P/00963 - Pembroke House, Mary Road, Under consideration Office space 10/P/01422 - Pembroke House, Mary Road, Approved 14.10.2010

4

Consultations. County Highway Authority: has undertaken an assessment in terms of the likely net additional generation, access arrangements and parking provision and is satisfied that the application would not have a material impact on the safety and operation of the adjoining public highway, they have no objections subject to conditions

Environment Agency: has objected as the Flood Evacuation Plan (FEP) does not demonstrate that a route of safe access and egress with a ‘very low’ hazard rating can be provided from all units to an area wholly outside of the 1% (1 in 100) plus 20% allowance for climate flood extent Emergency Planning Committee: are not involved in managing an evacuation and therefore are not in a position to comment on the plans and manage an evacuation event [officer comment: the Council work in co-operation with the County and emergency services and work collaboratively to plan for events and reduce risk. They would review a flood evacuation plan, to ensure that is complied with their requirements only] Natural England: no objection Thames Water: no objection with regards to sewerage or water infrastructure and for surface water drainage, it is the responsibility of the developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. National Trust: has objected and made the following comments: the amendments to the proposal are architectural only prominent siting due to the building height and proximity to the Wey Navigation harm to the visual setting of the conservation area overwhelming when seen from the navigation and towpath views from the navigation between buildings of cars and access roads design does not reflect the architectural and historical context of the surrounding area flat roof inappropriate in this location overdevelopment an alternative scheme should have been submitted Surrey Police: has no objection and has offered advice on pedestrian permeability and car park area lighting to Secured by Design ‘New Homes 2010’ standards / BS 5489-1:2003 Housing Development Manager: no objection, the provision of 9 x one bed units out of 29 units meets policy for 35 percent at 34.5 percent, and there is a requirement for one bed flats in this area Head of Community Care Services (Environmental Health): no objection in relation to contaminated land, subject to recommended conditions for a detailed Phase One survey and a detailed remediation scheme Operational Services (Waste and Recycling): no objection, the total requirement for the domestic element only of this site would be 8 x 1100 Litre, two x 770 Litre and three x 140 Litre bins distributed over the blocks, housed in external bin stores Guildford Society: object to the application on the following grounds: the design of the new application is more pleasing and the frontage onto the river is less

overpowering

5

increased spaces between the buildings on the river frontage are helpful proximity and height of blocks A, B and C to the river Blocks C, D, and E are too close (1m) to the southern site boundary the affordable housing has no amenity space [officer comment: the Council has no minimum requirements] would prefer to see density around 80 dph [officer comment: the amended scheme is approximately 78 dph] this application is premature for it will jeopardise the creation of the riverside park and

should therefore await the adoption of the new Local Plan [officer comment: the saved Local Plan is the current development plan and the application will be assessed against this and the NPPF or any other material considerations until a new Local Plan is adopted. The draft Local Plan under consultation carries very limited weight]

Third party comments: Three responses were received raising the following objections: inadequate flood defences and increased flooding risk

[officer comment: the Environment Agency has assessed the flood protection measures and are satisfied with this element but not the flood evacuation plan]

insufficient soft landscaping unneighbourly relationship between flats and car parking space not locally distinctive overspill parking and no more permits for on street car parking parked cars visually prominent from the river disruption during construction overlooking traffic congestion insufficient space for loading/unloading large vehicles

[officer comment: a swept path analysis confirms that large vehicles can enter and leave the site in a forward gear]

alternative scheme [officer comment: the Council can only assess the scheme before it]

17 responses in support were received raising the following matters:

provides housing and affordable housing redevelops previously developed land addresses flooding risk sustainable location improves the appearance of the site reduces traffic congestion improves safety and natural surveillance suggest joint scheme with National Trust to improve towpath

[officer comment: the Council can only assess the scheme before it] suggest permeable paving

[officer comment: this can be secured by condition] ensure that there is an effective flood evacuation plan improvement on the design of 13/P/00295 opportunity to enhance biodiversity

6

Planning policies. The following policies are relevant to the determination of this application. National Planning Policy Framework March 2012: Core planning principles Chapter 4: Promoting sustainable transport Chapter 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Chapter 7: Requiring good design Chapter 8: Promoting healthy communities Chapter 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Chapter 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Chapter 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment South East Plan 2009 NRM6 Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007): G1 General Standards of Development G5 Design Code G6 Planning Benefits G11 Corridor of the River Wey and the Guildford and Godalming Navigations G12 Location of Development H4 Housing in Urban Areas H11 Affordable Housing E3 Safeguarding Existing and Allocated Business, Industrial and Warehousing Land M6 Provision for Cyclists and Pedestrians HE10 Development Which Affects the Setting of a Conservation Area NE1 Potential Special Protection Areas NE4 Species Protection R2 Recreational Open Space Provision in Relation to Large New Residential Developments National planning documents: National Planning Policy Guidance (2014) Manual for Streets 2 (2010) English Heritage: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2011) Ministerial Statement "Planning for Growth" (2011) Supplementary planning documents: Planning Contributions SPD (2011) Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (2011) Vehicle Parking Standards SPD (2006) Surrey County Council Vehicular and Cycle Parking Guidance (2012) Residential Design Guide (2004) Landscape Character Assessment Townscape Assessment (2007) Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy (2009-2014) Evidence base documents: Employment Land Assessment (2013) Guildford Borough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) Guildford Borough Flood Risk Reduction Measures (2010) Surface Water Management Plan (2013) Annual Monitoring Report (2013/14) Draft Guildford and West Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (2014) Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (2014)

7

Planning considerations. The main planning considerations in this case are: the principle of development flooding and drainage loss of employment land impact on the character of the area and the setting of the conservation area and River

Wey Navigation corridor living environment impact on neighbouring amenity highway/parking considerations trees and landscaping impact on biodiversity legal agreement requirements sustainable design and construction The principle of development The application site is located within the urban area of Guildford where new residential development is acceptable in accordance with policy H4 of the saved local plan. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that “housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” The Council does not have a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as documented in the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (2013/14). Given the considerable need for housing in the borough and the significant weight in the NPPF in terms of the delivering of a wide choice of high quality homes (paragraph 50), the provision of 29 additional units is of benefit. Unless any adverse impact of the development significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits, then in view of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, permission should be granted. Flooding and drainage The sequential test The site lies within flood zones two and three, the River Wey Navigation being established as the functional floodplain (Flood Risk Reduction Measures Document). The NPPF advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. The indicated site is located within 5% (1 in 20) flood extent and is adjacent to the River Wey Navigation. So this flood zone has a high probability of flooding from rivers and is defined as the area where water has to flow in times of flood. Flooding has previously occurred on this site. Furthermore, Walnut Tree Close and the surrounding area experienced flooding in the most recent flood events in December 2013, January/February 2014.

8

A sequential, risk-based approach has to be undertaken to avoid, where possible, flood risk to people and property and manage any residual risk. A Sequential Test has to be applied in the first instance and then if necessary, an Exception Test. The Sequential Assessment submitted identified the assessment area in consultation with the Council. The assessment goes on to identify 30 different sites and whether there are any acceptable alternative sites that are of a similar size, available, not already allocated, time span for delivery within 0-5 years and have a lower risk of flooding. Since the sequential test was submitted the Council published an updated Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in June 2014, and this is the most current resource (it should be read alongside the partial update to the SHLAA published in May 2014). The only one of the sites in their sequential test which is of a comparable size, mostly in flood zone 1 and could deliver homes in the next five years is the Guildford Plaza. Furthermore, it is noted that nine of the 30 sites identified in the sequential test were below 0.10 hectares, so these were immediately unsuitable, due to their restricted significantly smaller size. The sequential test assessment states that the Guildford Plaza site is not available and will most likely be redeveloped for office use for which there is an extant planning permission. However, the SHLAA (2014) confirms that the availability of the site for residential development was restricted in the past by a legal claw back on the use of the land for residential development, which has encouraged the landowner to pursue office development instead. The latest information available suggests that the claw back expired in 2012, and the land is now for sale. The office development has not commenced and a residential development scheme could potentially come forward in the next five years. Therefore, as The Guildford Plaza could be a suitable alternative site and is at lower risk of flooding. Whilst it is acknowledged that there may be a new landowner soon, and their future plans are at present unknown, in the absence of additional information from the applicant to discount this site, the sequential test has not been passed. The exception test Paragraph 102 of the NPPF advises that if, following the application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible for the development to be located in a zone with a lower probability of flooding, the Exception Test can be applied, if appropriate. For the Exception Test to be passed: it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider, sustainability benefits to

the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated or permitted.

9

In terms of the exception test, the redevelopment of the site is considered to provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, thereby complying with the first requirement of the exception test, due to the need for housing in the absence of a five year housing land supply. So whilst the first test has been passed the second test on flood risk also has to be satisfied. The Environment Agency (EA) have considered the next part of the Exception Test and have objected as the Flood Evacuation Plan (FEP). It is acknowledge that the proposed first floor walkway network would be safe. However, when the residents reach the end of the walkway they may be faced with flood water depths and flows that are not safe for all, especially vulnerable people including children and this would affect the full evacuation of the site. In addition to this, no estimated timings have been provided and the FEP relies on the EA’s two hour flood warning and no other contingencies, in the event that this warning was delayed. The FEP has been amended to respond to comments from the Emergency Planning Committee, however, they cannot approve the plan or accept the liability for its implementation. Furthermore, given the objection from the EA a condition would not meet the tests in paragraph 206 of the NPP, as this would not be enforceable or reasonable given that in a flood event this could not be monitored and circumstances would be out of the control of relevant parties. Although, even if the development had passed the sequential test and the exception test all the walkways should be fully accessible from all units and kept clear of obstructions. The plans show that in Block B, part of these would be used as balconies/terraces. This is unsatisfactory as it has the potential to affect the FEP. Flood protection and drainage The submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) has been revised to take account of several of our previous concerns. The proposed development would not result in an increase in built footprint and there would be a reduction in the areas of hardstanding surfaces. Furthermore, the voids and undercroft parking would be used to act as flood storage. However, these voids have not been designed in line with usual recommendations. The floor levels would be 600mm above the one in 100 plus climate change flood level for Blocks A-E. This would meet requirements for finished floor levels, so that flood waters would not enter properties. The applicant is not proposing finished floor levels with a 300mm freeboard above the one in 100 year plus climate change flood level regarding block F, instead flood proofing and resilience measures would be included to account for the shortfall up to this level. This could result in some flood water entering the ground floor if the protection measures are not pout in place in time or fail. The existing site is covered in a hardstanding surface. The proposed development would reduce the extent of impermeable surfaces and introduce landscaping. A SuDS drainage strategy that takes into account infiltration can be submitted to the Council by a planning condition, to ensure that the development can be drained with regard to surface water. Therefore, the proposal would not increase the flooding risk and the proposed flood protection measures and SuDS drainage strategy would be acceptable.

10

The loss of employment land Paragraph 51 of the NPPF give some support for the change of use to residential “provided that there are not strong economic reasons why such development would be inappropriate.” Policy E3 safeguards commercial B use classes. This is consistent with paragraph 21 of the NPPF to “identify strategic sites, for local and inward investment to match the strategy and to meet anticipated needs over the plan period.” The site is part of a wider site identified in the Employment Land Assessment (ELA) (2013). This document recognises that the road suffers from traffic congestion, however, the land could be redeveloped for alternative uses due to its proximity to the railway station, town centre and University of Surrey, as well as complement the proposed station redevelopment. Policy E3 of the saved local plan does not allow the loss of business use unless: 1. the retention of the land or premises has been fully explored without success or 2. the land or premises are unsuitably located in terms of its impact on the environment,

levels of traffic movement, its accessibility to public transport and its link with the infrastructure, and its impact on the amenity of the area of adjoining occupiers;

and there is suitably located land or premises either on the market or with outstanding planning permission for any displaced firms. This application would lead to the loss of 2,943sq m of employment land for mixed use scheme comprising residential accommodation and 431 sq m of office space. Therefore, justification would need to be put forward for the net loss. The buildings have been marketed by Kingstons from September 2008 to 2012. The buildings have been marketed in excess of 12 months, however, this is not for the 12 month period prior to the submission of the application. This comprised of an advertising board on the premises, local press advertisements and circulation of particulars in industry press and websites. No details have been provided of viewings, offers and feedback. However some of the units are currently let. The demand is for good quality, modern, purpose built office space. The existing buildings have poor energy efficiency, are not accessible to wheelchairs, are dated, with structural and movement cracks. The applicant has submitted a letter from Hunter Brook dated 25.06.2012 who carried out an inspection of the buildings and they concluded that the buildings have exceeded their original life expectancy and works to extend their use would not be viable. This would account for the difficulties in securing full tenancy. Therefore, whilst the marketing period is not for the 12 months directly prior to submission of the application; in this case, given the low level of interest and condition of the buildings the submitted information is satisfactory. Furthermore, there would continue to be employment sites in this area identified in the Employment Land Assessment (ELA) that would contribute towards local economic growth and inward investment. Consequently, this loss would be acceptable in this instance. The proposed site has been assessed to be unsuitable for B use classes, and there is no in principle objection to the proposal. This approach is supported by paragraph 22 of the NPPF.

11

Impact on the character of the area and the setting of the conservation area and River Wey navigation corridor The site is adjacent to the River Wey Navigations Conservation Area and within the Corridor of the River Wey. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that 'the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people'. Paragraph 64 states however that 'permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.' The character of the conservation area around the application site is mixed. The river at this point curves, which provides views along sections of the River Wey Navigation that open and close vistas as one walks along the towpath or travels on the river. There are parts of the river in both directions that are lined with trees and hedges that provide a transition away from the urban grain. The existing uses and businesses have yards and car parks that provide clear views of the site from many public and less accessible vantage points. In addition to this, the small scale terraced and semi-detached houses that front Walnut Tree Close are a prominent feature of the area and part of its defining character. In terms of building types, scales and density, this is an area of transition along Walnut Tree Close. Towards the town centre, the buildings are greater in height and scale and closer to the road and river frontages. The application site is further from the town centre where the scale of adjoining buildings is smaller, the density is lower and there is a less defined grain of development. The pattern of development on this stretch of the river and conservation area is different, where the trees along the river are a prominent feature of the townscape, particularly from long views, and the buildings are set back from the river with areas of public open space, which shows the influence of the historic pattern of riverside meadows; as set out in the Townscape Assessment. Blocks A, B and C The existing buildings on the site are tight up against the navigation, however whilst they are not of any significant architectural merit, they are smaller in scale and height than those proposed (the storage building is 3.0m, single storey building 4.0m and two storey building 7.0m set back 11.0m from the River Wey Navigation). The proposed buildings would be set back from the river (8.0m minimum), however, they would be very prominent in the views along the river because of their height (12.0m maximum), size and siting on a meander of the navigation. The footprints of the proposed buildings are comparatively large and this, in combination with their height (over 10.0m), would make them appear substantially bigger than the existing. It is logical to take advantage of the outlook onto the river as much as possible, however, the combination of the built form across the site, the depths of the blocks together with their height and proximity to the boundary with the navigation would mean that the proposed buildings are too large for this location. This is in part due to the width being read as a long expanse of building, because of the views along the curve of the river.

12

The proposal has sought to address the previous reasons for refusal by reducing the built span at the third and fourth storeys, the gaps between the buildings and the set back from the navigation frontage, as below:

Block A Block B Block C 13/P/00295 Proposal 13/P/00295 Proposal 13/P/00295 Proposal

Minimum gap to north 1.8m 2.0m 7.8m 9.6m 7.0m 7.0m Minimum gap to south 7.8m 9.6m 7.0m 7.0m 1.2m 1.2m

Maximum

First and second storey

Width 19.1m 19.1 24.5m 23.5m 20.3m 20.3m Depth 21.0m 21.0m 15.7m 15.7m 19.8m 19.8m

Third storey Width 19.1m 17.5m 24.5m 18.0m 18.8m 16.8m Depth 21.0m 17.0m 14.1m 12.8m 19.7m 17.8m

Fourth storey Width 17.9m 12.1m 21.7m 11.2m 18.9m 10.6m Depth 19.1m 13.3m 11.2m 8.6m 17.7m 14.1m

The revised scheme has been achieved by a re-arrangement of the block form rather than any decrease in overall height and footprint. The third and fourth storeys have been reduced in footprint with staggered elevations. The fourth storey would also be set back from all elevations to appear as a subservient element. This has the result of reducing the mass of these blocks by staggering the elevations. The proposed design is contemporary and reflects some local distinctiveness in the use of brick and render. The development has been broken up into distinct elements and uses set backs, balconies and difference in materials to add interest. The fourth levels are not significantly reduced and remain prominent on top of an overall bulk and footprint that would appear overly large on riverside views, and on approaches along the towpath due to the staggered siting of the blocks. This would be visible in the round, and not just on the elevation facing the river. The blocks would be over dominant and oppressive when seen from near views from the towpath and river as well as from further away from the conservation area and along the navigation. In terms of the impact of the proposal on the wider townscape from Walnut Tree Close, the size of the proposed buildings would be a significant contrast to the small-scale housing on the road frontage. Whilst the rear elevation of Blocks A, B and C would be set back a minimum of 90m from the highway, the footprint, height, bulk and scale of the buildings is excessive for the location, in relation to both the river and road frontages and fails to respect the context of the adjoining buildings and townscape in this part of Walnut Tree Close. Blocks D and E These would replace two three storey office buildings which are co-joined and have a simple appearance and abut the shared side boundary and frontage to the pavement.

13

The proposed replacement buildings would not be significantly taller (Block D would be 1.0m taller and Block E would be the same height), so they would not appear incongruous in the streetscene, as they would be no higher than the adjoining residential development. Furthermore, the elevations would be an improvement on the existing buildings using brick to complement the surrounding buildings and making a feature of the entrance. Block F This would be an infill development where there is currently a vehicular access, and has been designed to complement the adjoining buildings in the streetscene. The building would be wider so it would not have the same proportions as the existing two storey dwellings. However, Block F would have the same eaves and ridge height, half hipped roof and incorporate features such as a bays and a similar fenestration arrangement. The proposal has been assessed by the Principal Conservation Officer, who has raised no objections to the use of a modern architectural treatment on the site, however the important issue is the quality of the design and whether it is appropriate to its setting given that the site is widely visible. The proposed built form does not respond to the context due to the scale, bulk, height, and footprint of Blocks A, B and C which are excessive for the site, resulting in an overdevelopment which fails to respect the prevailing townscape character. Furthermore, the proposal would harm the setting of the River Wey Navigation Conservation Area and the Corridor of the River Wey due to the scale of development in close proximity to the navigation. Living environment The net internal floor areas of the flats would be as follows: One bed: 45 – 46 sq m Two beds: 64 – 110 sq m Three beds: 74 – 100 sq m The one bedroom flats would be smaller and offer less space for storage and furniture; however they may be suitable for single occupancy and the Council’s Housing Development Manager has raised no objection to their size. The two and three bedroom units would have a variety of layouts and positions which would ensure that the they would provide a satisfactory level of living and storage space. 20 of the units are two and three bedroom units, therefore they have the potential to attract small families. Two units would have no private outdoor amenity area and nine units would have small balconies between 1.0m – 1.3m in depth this would not provide an adequate provision for the number of occupants. Further details are below: Block A: Small balcony – flats 1, 4 and 5 Block B: No private amenity space, part of the raised walkway– flats 1 and 3 Small balcony – flats 4 and 6

14

Block C: Small balcony – flats 2, 3, 4 and 5 The balconies to flats 1 and 3 in Block B would also form part of the raised escape route, this shared use may result in some conflict and no measures are proposed to address this. Flat one on the ground floor of Block A would have five car parking spaces in front of it, consequently the living area and private amenity area would experience noise and disturbance from car engines, headlights and car doors slamming at all times of the day. There is no buffer between the end of the parking bays and the windows to flat one and there is not enough space to create this due to the 6.0m rear clearance required for cars. As there are five spaces these would be allocated to other flats in Block A, so this would not reduce the conflict. The proposed parking arrangement would have a harmful impact on the amenities of this flat from the associated activity. Whilst this is a constrained site, close to the town centre and on previously developed land; the NPPF states in the Core Principles to “secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings.” The proposed development would not provide an adequate private outdoor provision and the parking arrangement would be harmful to the amenity of flat one in Block A. Therefore, the proposal results in a poor living environment for occupants. Most of the habitable rooms in the blocks would be single aspect and rooms on the corners of the blocks would be dual aspect. This would ensure that the rooms have adequate daylight. The juxtaposition between the blocks and separation distances would ensure there would be no direct overlooking. The gap between Blocks B and C would be 8.0m at the first floor increasing on the upper storeys which would be set back. The fourth floor of blocks would have terrace areas with glass and metal railings to maintain privacy the glass could be made opaque to preserve the privacy of occupants using the terrace. The terrace to Block C would wrap around the flat. This would not cause a loss of privacy due to the position of the surrounding blocks. The north elevation of Block A and south elevation of Block C would face parking courts serving the adjoining sites. A number of sole windows to habitable rooms would face this aspect and at the ground floor would be 1.2m to 2.6m to the shared boundary at the ground floor. Whilst this would be close proximity of the first floor windows as there is no adjoining built development they would not experience undue overshadowing and overbearing impact. There would be parking spaces to the rear of Block F as theses would at least 8.8m from the rear elevation and separated by wooden fencing the activity associated with this would not have a harmful impact. Impact on neighbouring amenity Traditional Victorian housing (85-97 Walnut Tree Close) backs onto the western boundary of the site between the two existing accesses. These properties are in narrow, elongated plots, and in the case of 85 and 87, have extremely limited garden areas to the side of the houses. Currently, there is a two storey employment building, 9.0m in height and 3.4m from the rear gardens of these houses. Block B would be erected facing these dwellings, the minimum separation distances are detailed below:

15

Gap from Block B to shared boundary of 89-97

Gap from Block B to two storey element of 89-97

13/P/00295 Proposal 13/P/00295 Proposal First and second storey 10.4m 10.4m 22.2m 22.2m Third storey 10.4m 10.4m 22.2m 22.2m Fourth storey 10.4m 12.4m 22.2m 24.2m

Due to the under-croft parking the finished floor level of the fist storey would be 1.4m above the ground level. The second to fourth storey windows would all have a direct line of sight to the rear aspect windows of 89-97 Walnut Tree Close and there would be a large number of windows that would overlook the rear gardens and result in an adverse impact on the amenities of these properties. There is an opportunity to reduce the size of the openings and have obscure glazing on the windows to bathrooms and landings, however, there would continue to be a significant number of windows to habitable rooms where it would not be possible to mitigate this impact. This would result in a material loss of neighbour amenity from overlooking. The windows on the north elevation of Block D serving living areas would be 8.0m away and would directly overlook the exceptionally small, rear amenity space of no.s 85 and 87 and result in a loss of privacy. Due to the cumulative impact of the number of windows and their orientation, this would result in an unneighbourly relationship. The proposed Block B would increase the separation distances compared to the refused scheme as the third and fourth storeys would be set back, this would ensure that there would be no harmful overbearing impact or overshadowing. The built form would be not as wide as the existing building, would be set further towards the eastern boundary with the navigation and the staggered elevations would have no materially harmful impact even with the increase in height. Block A is set well away from the rear gardens of 105-111 Walnut Tree Close, and whilst there would undoubtedly be some mutual overlooking, this would not be sufficient to warrant refusing the application on this basis. No.s 85 and 87 and Block F would experience some overlooking from oblique angles however, given the juxtaposition of Block B and the separation distance of 21.4m – 24.0m would not result in an undue overbearing impact, overshadowing or loss of privacy. Block F would project a maximum of 13.4m and be set in at the sides this would reduce any overbearing impact and the development would not encroach the 45 degree angle, from the existing adjoining Victorian dwellings to each side. The residential properties at Wey View Court lie adjacent to the proposed office building (Block E), where there is an existing building and would largely maintain the existing relationship. Block D would be set to the rear of the office block and would be taller than the existing building, however, the relative position of the buildings to each other would prevent any harmful loss of light to these flats and maintain their privacy. Therefore, due to the harmful overlooking from the windows on Block B facing the rear of 89-93 Walnut Tree Close and Block D facing 85-87 Walnut Tree Close. This would not preserve the amenity of adjoining residential properties contrary to policies G1(3) and H4 of the of the saved Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the provisions of the NPPF.

16

Highway / parking considerations The residential blocks would have 46 car parking spaces (24 as undercroft spaces and 22 on the surface) for 29 residential units comprising a mix of one, two and three bedroom flats. The office would have seven car parking spaces. There would be a provision of one car club space, one accessible space and 45 cycle parking spaces (41 for residential use and 4 for the office) to encourage the use of alternative travel. Furthermore, the site is in a sustainable location 400m from Guildford Railway station, 900m from the bus station and also within walking distance to the town centre where there are services and facilities. This would assist in reducing reliance on the car for journeys and the proposed provision would be acceptable for a site in the town centre parking boundary. There are limited on-street car parking spaces along Walnut Tree Close. Whilst existing demand for these is high, the proposed parking provision would comply with maximum parking standards and in such a sustainable location would not cause significant pressure on on-street car parking. As there are existing parking restrictions in place on Walnut Tree Close, the limited provision of car parking would not result in a highway safety issue due to the restrictions in place. The site currently has two accesses off Walnut Tree Close. It is proposed to close the northernmost access, between 97 and 105 Walnut Tree Close and realign part of the southern access to improve visibility splays. The site layout would enable delivery and service vehicles to enter and leave the site as shown in the swept path analysis. This would ensure that the highway is not obstructed and maintain the free flow of traffic. The existing use attracts 30-40 vehicle movements in the weekday morning and the proposed use would be about 20 vehicle movements. The peak traffic periods on Walnut Tree Close are on weekday mornings and evenings when people travel to the two junctions at the gyratory at Guildford and the junction at Ladymead. The proposed development would not generate any more person trips than the current use and would attract less movements during the course of the day. A transport statement was submitted with the application. This has been assessed by the County Highway Authority who has raised no objection in terms of highway safety and capacity. Trees and landscaping There are three trees on the site two Ashes and one Sycamore, the tree survey submitted categorises these as low quality trees and due to their health and life expectancy their loss would be acceptable. Replacements can be secured through a landscaping scheme. The proposed development would increase the extent of soft landscaped areas adjoining the navigation with larger open spaces around Block A. In addition to this, the area around buildings and next to the shared boundary would be softened.

17

This would improve the appearance of the site and enable it to integrate into the setting of the conservation area. However, the large residential blocks given their height, mass and bulk would continue to dominate the site and the intervening landscaping would not mitigate this impact due to the size of the development from wider views and within the site. Impact on biodiversity An extended phase one habitat survey was submitted for assessment with the application. The site contains, three mature trees, scrub along the eastern boundary, 3.0m from a watercourse and trees and has extensive hardstanding areas. The report found that there were no suitable habitats for amphibians, the trees cannot support substantial roosting opportunities and the buildings were inspected for roosts and none were found and there is limited bird interest in the site other than common and garden species. As the site is an unsuitable habitat for any protected species, the clearing of the site would be acceptable with no mitigation measures. Legal agreement requirements The three tests as set out in Regulation 122 and 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) require S.106 agreements to be: (a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As the application proposes the provision of residential units, in order for the development to be acceptable in planning terms, a S.106 agreement is required as part of any subsequent planning approval to secure a financial contribution towards local infrastructure, service providers and community facilities. The applicant has not been invited to enter into a legal agreement as the scheme is unacceptable, this section outlines the contributions that would have been sought. Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area 29 residential units are proposed (10 x one bed, 15 x two bed, 4 x three bed). The Council's adopted Thames Basin Heaths SPA (TBHSPA) Avoidance Strategy 2009 - 2014 (February 2010) requires a Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANG) contribution and an Access Management contribution to avoid any adverse impact on the SPA. The SANG avoidance site would be determined at the time of, or following payment of contribution. A planning obligation is required in accordance with the terms of the Strategy. Subject to this there would be no adverse impact on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. A SANG contribution of £112,221.44 and an SPA access management and monitoring contribution of £19,672.93 is required. Open space provision As the site is unable to accommodate the open space requirements set out in Local Plan policy R2 and Planning Contributions SPD, the Council would accept a commuted payment to improve open space in the area of the development in lieu of physical provision.

18

The sports ground sum of £29,817.66 would go towards the refurbishment and extension of the Woodbridge Sports Ground Pavilion to increase community access and use to ensure that the site has appropriate facilities to sustain sport. This is a partnership between the Council and several community stakeholders. The play space sum of £24,291.75 would go towards the improvement and extension of the play facilities at Stoke Recreation Ground. Affordable housing There are currently 3,700 households on the Council’s housing register, awaiting affordable housing, of which 2,500 are in the top priority bands as per our housing allocation scheme. Delivery of new affordable housing in the borough has failed to meet demand in recent years. There is a need for new affordable housing, and a particular need for one bedroom units in Guildford Town Centre. Therefore, in accordance with policy H11 and the Planning Contributions SPD 35 percent of the residential units need to be affordable with at least 60 percent of these should be available as affordable rented accommodation. The proposal would comprise 10 x one bed affordable units this would be 34.5 percent of the 35 percent required, the Housing Development Manager has confirmed that the provision is acceptable given the need for one bedroom units. Education The proposed development is in an area where there is pressure on school places. There is provision in the NPPF to ensure that there would be sufficient infrastructure as an element of sustainable development. Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states "The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities". NPPF paragraph 176 states "where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation or compensation), the development should not be approved if the measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements". The County would primary contributions to Onslow Infant and/or Queen Eleanor Junior which are within a two mile radius and apply secondary contributions to a school within a three mile radius. At current rates, the following education contribution would be required, £35,006.40 for a primary school within two miles of the site and £37,439.85 for a secondary school within three miles of the site. Libraries A contribution from new development is sought to deal with the service impact arising as a consequence of the development, namely the initial one off capital costs. Libraries need to adapt and expand to serve the needs of the new population, the Museums, Libraries and Archives South East Public Library Tariff set the library tariff charge.

19

The IT services are currently working to near maximum capacity and latest CIPFA figures show such use is continuing to rise, recent research also shows that at many libraries over 30 percent of the library visitors are now making use of the internet facilities, despite a relatively high degree of home IT ownership within Surrey. The site is in the catchment area of Guildford library so the library contribution of £4,558 would be spent on new IT resources for that library. Sustainability Paragraph 96, chapter 10 of the NPPF states that in determining planning applications, 'local planning authorities should expect new development to: (a) comply with adopted Local Plan policies on local requirements for decentralised energy

supply unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant, having regard to the type of development involved and its design, that this is not feasible or viable; and

(b) take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping to minimise energy consumption.

Paragraph 97 sets out that local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. The energy report confirms that PV panels on the roof would provide 10 percent of the energy needs of the residential development can be met through renewable energy, this can be secured by condition. However, no specific details of how the development has been designed to meet Code three for Sustainable Homes (or any alternative scheme which may be implemented) have been submitted for consideration. This could be required by condition, if the proposal was otherwise considered acceptable. Conclusion. The proposed scheme would not pass the Sequential Test as there is a potentially lower risk site available and would introduce a more vulnerable use in flood zone 3 where there is a flood risk. The Flood Evacuation Plan (FEP) would not ensure a safe access route and this would therefore, not meet the requirements of the Exception Test. The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site, by virtue of extensive footprint, height, scale, bulk and the relationship and proximity of Blocks A, B, and C to the River Wey Navigation. This would be harmful to the setting of the conservation area, given its close proximity and the form of the buildings would not respect the context of the townscape on this part of Walnut Tree Close. The layout of the proposed units and parking arrangement would create a poor living environment as there would be inadequate outdoor amenity space and unneighbourly relationship to a ground floor flat. There would be an adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy and unneighbourly development on the occupants of 85-97 Walnut Tree Close. RECOMMENDATION: Refuse for the following reason(s) :-

20

1. The proposed development by virtue of its extensive footprint, height, scale, bulk

and the relationship and proximity of Blocks A, B, and C to the River Wey Navigation fails to respect and is harmful to the setting of the River Wey Navigation Conservation Area, the Corridor of the River Wey, road frontage to Walnut Tree Close and the character of the townscape. This would be contrary to policies G5 (1-7), G5 (9), G11, H4 and HE7 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Residential Design Guide 2004, Guildford Borough Character Assessment: Townscape Assessment 2007 and English Heritage guidance 'The Setting of Heritage Assets 2011'.

2. The proposed development fails to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. This would be contrary to paragraph 101 of the NPPF which advises that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk.

3. The proposed development and Flood Evacuation Plan (FEP) fails to demonstrate the required element of safe access and escape routes for a ‘more vulnerable’ residential use and taking account of the vulnerability of its users. This would be contrary to paragraphs 102 and 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Table three ID number, 7-067-20140306 of the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) and policy G1(6) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007).

4. The proposed development would fail to provide an adequate provision of private outdoor amenity space for each unit in Blocks A, B, and C and the car parking arrangement would result in a loss of privacy and undue noise and disturbance. This would create a poor living environment for future occupants. This would be contrary to policies G1(3) and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

5. The proposed development, by virtue of the height and proximity of Block B to the rear elevation and gardens of 89-97 Walnut Tree Close, and height and proximity of Block D to the gardens of 85-87 Walnut Tree Close would result in a loss of privacy and overlooking to the occupants of these houses. This would be contrary to policies G1(3) and H4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

6. The following levels of contribution and provisions would have been sought from the applicant had the application been supported:

A contribution of £112,221.44 for avoidance works, in accordance with the tariffs set in the Guildford Borough Council Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (March 2010) for SANGS contributions and an Access Management and Monitoring Contribution of £19,672.93

21

Off-site open space contribution of £24,291.75 for play space and £29,817.66 for sports grounds in accordance with saved policy R2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and Planning Contributions SPD 2011.

34.5 percent of the dwellings to be affordable housing in accordance with saved policy H11 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the Council's Infrastructure SPD 2006;

An educational contribution of £35,006.40 towards primary schools and £37,439.85 towards secondary schools in accordance with Surrey County Council assessment to mitigate the impact of the development on the local schools.

A contribution of £4,558 towards IT resources at Guildford library

Without a completed legal agreement securing this contribution an objection is raised in accordance with policy G6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07), the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (March 2010), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Contributions SPD (March 2011).

7. The applicant has failed to enter into a S.106 legal agreement to provide a financial contribution in line with the Council's Avoidance Strategy 2009-2014 (February 2010). The local planning authority, in the absence of an appropriate assessment or any alternative mitigation measures, is therefore unable to satisfy itself that the proposals would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the TBHSPA. In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse effect on the integrity of the TBHSPA, including the deterioration of the quality of the habitat and increased disturbance to birds. As such, the development is contrary to policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/9/07) and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Informatives: 1. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy

Framework, Guildford Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach to development proposals focused on looking for solutions. We work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner by: offering a pre-application advice service updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of

their application and where possible suggesting solutions In this instance, although the applicant has not taken the opportunity to enter into pre-application discussions following the refusal of 13/P/0295, during the course of the application advice was given with regards to the unacceptable height, size and scale of the development. However, the amended plans have not sufficiently addressed the previous reasons for refusal in relation the built form and the relationship with existing buildings and the setting of the conservation area.

22

The changes required are significant and could not be dealt with by further amended plans during the course of the negotiation and the application was therefore recommended for refusal.

2. This decision relates expressly to drawing(s)

Plan Drawing no. Date Received Block and Location Plan S-P- 117J 08.05.2014

Block A plans sheet 1 A-P-101F 23.12.2013

Block A plans sheet 2 A-P-102G 08.05.2014

Block A elevations sheet 1 A-P-103G 23.12.2013

Block A elevations sheet 2 A-P-104K 08.05.2014

Block A plans sheet 1 B-P-105H 23.12.2013

Block B plans sheet 2 B-P-106G 23.12.2013

Block B elevations sheet 1 B-P-107H 23.12.2013

Block B elevations sheet 2 B-P-108K 23.12.2013

Block C plans sheet 1 C-P-109E 23.12.2013

Block C plans sheet 2 C-P-110H 08.05.2014

Block C elevations sheet 1 C-P-111J 08.05.2014

Block C elevations sheet 2 C-P-112L 08.05.2014

Block D Plans and elevations D-P-113G 23.12.2013

Block E Plans and elevations sheet 1 E-P-114F 08.05.2014

Block E Elevations sheet 2 E-P-115D 08.05.2014

Block F Plans and elevations F-P-116H 08.05.2014

Site plan parking level S-P-097L 08.05.2014

Indicative Landscape strategy plan S-P-118N 08.05.2014

Landscape strategy with top floor comparison

S-P-128A 08.05.2014

Existing Hard Standing S-P – 301G 08.05.2014

Existing and Proposed Plan S-P – 401j 08.05.2014

Section through river buildings S-P – 402G 08.05.2014

Elevation towards Walnut Tree Close S-P – 404B 08.05.2014

23

Elevations towards river S-P – 412A 08.05.2014

Swept path analysis 121030-TK01 rev A 23.12.2013

Swept path analysis 121030-TK02 rev A 23.12.2013

Swept path analysis 121030-TK03 rev A 23.12.2013

Swept path analysis 121030-TK04 rev A 23.12.2013

Tree plan PRI18372-01 23.12.2013

Existing plans EP 119 23.12.2013

Existing plans EP 122 23.12.2013

Existing plans EP 123 23.12.2013

Existing plans EP 124 23.12.2013

Existing river elevation EP 125A 23.12.2013

Planning, Design and Access statement by Vail Williams with appendices Marketing report by Kingstons, commercial agents with appendices dated

December 2013 Building survey by Hunter Brook Contamination Report by Geotechnical Site Survey and existing building plan (Drawing reference SD10527-01) by

Sitechnics Drainage Survey by Technics Group Flood Risk Report by EWE Associates Ltd with appendices Flood Evacuation Plan by EWE Associates Ltd Sequential and Exception Test by Vail Williams Building for Life 2012 Statement by The Jonathan Barlow Partnership Energy Statement by BUA Architects Transport Appraisal by Motion Highways with appendices Ecological Assessment by ACD Landscape Architects Tree Report by ACD Landscape Architects by ACD Arboriculture