Application No: 2019/0166 Application

Type: FULL

Case Officer: Katie Herrington Ward: Long Ditton Ward

Expiry Date: 25/04/2019

Location: 1 Manordene Close Thames Ditton Surrey KT7 0DZ

Proposal: Additional attached two-storey dwelling, single-storey side extension to

existing front porch, refuse/recycling stores, bicycle stores and widening

of existing access from Manordene Close following partial demolition of

the existing house and demolition of the existing outbuildings.

Applicant: Mr Gurvinder Singh

Agent: Michael Snellgrove

Space Design Consultants Ltd

30 Van Diemans Road

Chelmsford

Essex

CM2 9QQ Decision Level: If Permit- Sub-Committee

If Refuse – Sub-Committee

Recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION A

Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory

unilateral undertaking for affordable housing within 3 months of the

committee resolution.

RECOMMENDATION B

If a satisfactory unilateral undertaking to secure the required affordable

housing contribution within 3 months of the committee resolution

delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to refuse

planning permission for the following reason(s):

1. The proposal would, by reason of the lack of a Unilateral Undertaking

in relation to a financial contribution for affordable housing, would be

contrary to the requirements of Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy 2011

and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

2012.

Representations: 6 objections;

• Would not provide minimum garden space

• Would result in parking stress/ obstruction of the road/inadequate access

• Urbanising/ overcrowding/ out of keeping

• Loss of privacy

• Result in loss of trees/ green/ loss of local garden/garden grabbing

• Heavy duty lorries causing pollution and other impacts

• Flooding impacts

• Loss of daylight and sunlight

• Pressure on drains

R e p o r t

Description

1. A two-storey end of terrace dwelling located on a corner plot on the south western side of Manordene Close, Thames Ditton.

Constraints

2. The relevant planning constraints are:

• Flood Zone 2

• Surface Water Flooding Medium & High Policy

3. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application:

Core Strategy 2011 CS8 – Thames Ditton, Long Ditton, Hinchley Wood and Weston Green

CS17 – Local Character, Density and Design CS19 – Housing type and Size CS21 – Affordable housing CS26 - Flooding CS28 – Implementation and Delivery Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development DM2 – Design and amenity DM6 – Landscape and Trees DM7 – Access and parking DM10 – Housing DM12 - Heritage Design & Character SPD 2012 Flood Risk SPD 2016 Developers Contributions SPD 2012

4. Relevant Planning History

Reference Description Decision

2018/2481 additional attached two-storey dwelling, detached

single-storey outbuilding and side extension to existing

front porch following partial demolition of the existing

house and demolition of the existing outbuildings

Withdrawn

2018/2404 Single-storey rear extension, first floor rear extension,

attached garage, side extension to existing front porch

and new vehicular access from Manordene Close

following demolition of existing outbuilding

Grant

Proposal

5. Permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear and first floor rear extension in order to create a new one bedroom dwelling.

6. The scale and massing of the extensions is similar to that approved under application 2018/2404.

7. The proposal would measure 5.6m in depth at ground floor level and would appear to connect to the existing projection here, resulting in a width of 8.8m. The upper floor element would measure 4.9x4m. The proposal would also demolish the shed and outbuilding.

8. To the front would be a bin store and parking space. The existing and new dwelling would be separated by a fence. To the side would be the garden area and a cycle store. Consultations

9. Surrey County Council Highways: No objection subject to conditions.

10. Natural England: No objection.

Positive and Proactive Engagement

11. The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner to resolve problems before the application is submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. This requirement is met within Elmbridge through the availability of pre-application advice.

12. No pre-application advice has been sought for this application.

Planning Considerations

13. The main considerations in the determination of this application are;

• Making efficient use of land

• Affordable housing

• The design of the proposal and its impact on the host dwelling, the character of the area and the street scene.

• The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

• Amenity of the prospective residential occupiers

2018/1343 Part two/part single-storey rear extension to form 2 flats,

single-storey front extension, hip-to-gable roof

extension, rear dormer, bin stores and new access from

Manordene Close following demolition of existing

outbuildings and existing single storey rear extension.

Withdrawn

2017/2559 Single-storey rear extension, first floor rear extension,

attached garage and new vehicular access from

Manordene Close following demolition of existing

outbuildings

Granted

2016/1712 Lawful Development Certificate: Whether planning

permission is required for a proposed hip to gable roof

extension and rear dormer window following removal of

chimney stack

Granted

2002/2914 Single storey rear extension Granted

2002/2268 Single storey rear extension Refused

2001/2646 Two storey rear extension to provide self-contained

house

Refused

• Flooding

• Highways

• Other

Making efficient use of land

14. The proposal site currently consists of a single dwelling and it is proposed to extend upon this to provide a 1 bedroom dwelling.

15. Paragraph 123 of the NPPF sets out that where there is a shortage of land for meeting identified housing need, it is especially important that planning decisions avoid homes being built at low densities and ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site. In addition to this, there is an overwhelming need for smaller new homes in the borough. The number of four bedroom plus homes in the borough has already exceeding the boroughs assessed need (1%) (as identified in the SHMA 2016) and this size of home no longer positively contributes towards meeting local housing need.

16. The proposal would provide an additional 1 bedroom house. Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy sets out that the Council will seek to secure a range of housing types and sizes on developments across the Borough reflecting the most up to date SHMA in terms of the size and type of dwellings.

17. The SHMA (2016) is a relevant and up to date source of qualitative information regarding the size, type and tenure of homes needed in Elmbridge. The assessment concluded there is an overwhelming need for smaller new homes (C3 accommodation) and an acute need for affordable housing (primarily social rented tenure). The primary need is for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom homes (99%) with just 1% being for 4 plus beds. However, in the past the delivery of new homes in Borough has been dominated by four or more bedroom properties and this is reflected in the data in the Authority Monitoring Report 2016-17 3. The number of new four bed (plus) homes in the Borough has already achieved over the 1% identified in the SHMA (2016). The continued oversupply of larger homes could further exacerbate affordability issues and going forward this size of home no longer positively contributes towards meeting local housing need.

18. In terms of efficient use of the land, the council promotes development that contributes to an overall housing target of 40 dwellings per hectare and achieves a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). The proposal would result in a density of around 55 dph which would be above this requirement, but whether this is harmful or not is subject to other material considerations, including its impact upon character.

19. The proposal would result in the more efficient use of land and would contribute towards the councils assessed housing need. The provision of an additional 1 bedroom dwelling in this location is acceptable in principle, subject to the other relevant planning considerations. Affordable housing

20. Policy CS21: Affordable Housing of the Council’s Core Strategy (2011) requires that sites of 1 – 4 residential units should provide a financial contribution equivalent to 20% of the gross number of dwellings.

21. It is acknowledged that a revised National Planning Policy Framework has been published and is a material consideration in the determination of all relevant planning applications. However, as set out in Section 38(6) of Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the starting point for any decision is the Development Plan unless material consideration(s) indicate otherwise. As set out in paragraph 2 of the NPPF, this approach is required by planning law. It is therefore for the decision-maker to determine the weight to be applied.

22. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that ‘provision of affordable housing should not be sought for residential developments that are not major developments, other than in designated rural areas (where policies may set out a lower threshold of 5 units or fewer)’. Elmbridge Borough

is not a designated rural area and major development sites are defined in the NPPF as development of 10 or more homes, or the site has an area of 0.5 hectares of more. Nevertheless, as set out in paragraph 3 of the NPPF, the Framework should be read as a whole (including its footnotes and annexes). In this context the following NPPF policies are also relevant in regard to the Council’s continuation to apply policy CS21.

23. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF state that within the context of significantly boosting the supply of homes ‘… that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed’. Paragraph 61 states ‘… the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to, those who require affordable housing…’ Finally, paragraph 62 states: ‘Where a need for affordable housing is identified, planning policies should specify the type of affordable housing required, and expect it to be on-site unless: a) off-site provision or an appropriate financial contribution in lieu can be robustly justified…’

24. Paragraph 63 of the NPPF is a clear continuation of the approach to developer contributions on small sites as set out in Government’s Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) (28 November 2014) and subsequent changes to Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) dated 19 May 2016. In response to this policy change, the Council set out in its Statement on the WMS (Update – February 2017), that its position was to continue to consider on a case by case basis whether local circumstances with regard to affordable housing and the nature of the development sites in the Borough were sufficient to warrant the application of policy CS21, or whether greater weight should be attached to the WMS and changes to PPG.

25. The Council’s approach has been repeatedly upheld by Appeal Inspectors recognising that policy CS21 was consistent with other policies of the NPPF (paragraphs 47 and 50 (NPPF, 2012)) which required local planning authorities to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing and where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, set policies for meeting this need on site, unless off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified. Furthermore, several Appeal Inspectors noted that whilst the WMS was a material consideration of considerable importance and weight, the intention of the WMS is to ensure that financial contributions do not become a disproportionate burden for small scale developers and thus frustrate housing supply. Appeal Inspectors have continuously addressed the Council’s Statement on the WMS (referenced above) and the significant difficulty in the delivery of affordable housing in the least affordable authority in England outside of London, noting that small sites make a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing in the Borough.

26. Appeal Inspectors have also stated that there has been no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the requirements of policy CS21 are placing an unreasonable or disproportionate burden on developers. As a consequence, it has been found that whilst the WMS carried considerable weight, Inspectors do not consider it to outweigh the development plan given the acute and substantial need for affordable housing in the Borough (as evidenced by the Kingston & North-East Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)) (2016) and the importance of delivery through small sites towards this.

27. On the basis of the above and the evidence in relation to local housing need, affordability and housing land supply (as summarised in the Council’s Statement (Update – February 2017)), the Council will continue with its approach to apply Policy CS21 in the decision-making process where relevant. The Council has provided clear evidence of the acute need for affordable housing whereas, little evidence has been submitted by applicants suggesting that policy CS21 is having a disproportionate effect on small schemes. Where evidence is submitted to the contrary, the Council will, in accordance with policy CS21 and the Development Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2012), allow flexibility.

28. As the applicant did not submit a viability assessment, the viability of the scheme is not considered affected by the provision of the requisite financial contribution towards the

affordable housing and therefore this contribution is not considered disproportionate. As such, a financial contribution towards the affordable housing from this development is due. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to provide a Unilateral Undertaking to secure the required affordable housing contribution. Subject to a Unilateral Undertaking being received within 3 months of the resolution to grant permission, the proposal would comply with the requirements of policy CS21. The design of the proposal and its impact on the host dwelling, the character of the area and the street scene.

29. Concerns have been raised that the proposal would be out of character in the street scene.

The council’s policy CS17 requires proposals to be of a high quality design which maximises the efficient use of urban land whilst responding to the positive features of individual locations, integrating sensitively with the locally distinctive townscape, landscape, and heritage assets, and protecting the amenities of those within the area.

30. The application site is located within an area characterised by semi-detached and terrace dwellings, a number of which have been extended.

31. The proposed extensions are located to the rear of the dwelling but given that it is a corner plot would be visible from Manordene Road North. However, the proposed extensions are similar in their scale, massing and form as that approved under application 2018/2404. The difference between this application in terms of scale and massing and form is that unlike application 2018/2404, no garage is proposed in this application.

32. The proposed extensions, as set out in application 2018/2404, are considered to appear subservient to the host dwelling and integrate with it, and as a result, would not result in harm to the character of the host building or the street scene.

33. As a result, given that an extension of a similar scale and massing extension already has approval and is extant, that the proposal in this regard would not result in harm to the character of the street scene or that of the host dwelling.

34. However, unlike application 2018/2404, the extension forms a single dwellinghouse. To facilitate this, it would have a different fenestration, its own parking space, and garden area, and boundary treatment. As a result, it would have the appearance of separate dwellinghouse. As such, the impact of this upon such street scene character requires assessment.

35. The proposed residential unit would front onto Manordene Road North. This road is characterised by dwellings fronting onto this road with driveways. As a result, the proposal would not be considered to be out of character with this.

36. The proposal would use the existing access and parking area and the proposal would have its primary elevation towards the road. Whilst its built form would be different form that of the rest of the dwellings in the street scene, the proposed form of the extension is very similar to what has been approved and is found to be acceptable.

37. As a result, given the above, the proposal is not considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of the street scene, and is acceptable in this respect. The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

38. Concerns have been raised with regards to the proposal impact upon the residential

amenities. As set out earlier in this report, the proposed extension, in terms of its position, scale and massing and form, is similar to that approved under 2018/2404. That extension was not found to result in harm to residential amenity. However, for clarity, an assessment on this scheme is carried out below.

39. With regards to impact upon no. 3 Manordene Close to the north, the proposed infill extension would be sited in an existing enclosed courtyard area and would replace two outbuildings

located on the boundary to number 3. This neighbouring property also benefits from existing structures and outbuildings to this boundary.

40. In terms of daylight and sunlight, whilst the proposal would breach the BRE’s 45 degree ‘rule of thumb’ test to number 3, it is considered that given the shadowing from the structures on both sides of the boundary, along with the hipped roof design of the proposed single storey extension, and the set back of the first floor extension, it is considered that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon residential amenity in terms of loss of light, shadowing and overbearing impact. Regard has been given to the extant permission 2018/2404 which would allow the construction of a comparable sized enlargement.

41. With regard to the impact upon number 127 Manor Road North (sited to the west), given the distance between the properties, and the fact the proposal would not project beyond the rear of this property, it is considered the development would not result in a harmful impact upon residential amenity.

42. In term of privacy, the ground floor would have a side facing window towards number 127, however, any views from this would be obscured by the boundary treatment. No side or rear windows are proposed on the upper floor. The distance between the first floor windows towards Manor Road North and the adjacent dwelling is at a distance to avoid overlooking and overbearing impacts, and would have similar outlook to existing first floor windows of the host dwelling.

43. The proposed dwelling, as does the existing would benefit from Permitted Development rights. However, roof alterations under Class B, outbuildings under Class E, and some development Under Class A may result in harm to the character of the area through additional bulk and massing and to residential amenity. This would include for the existing dwelling. In order to the for the Council to avoid such harm, a condition has been recommended removing Permitted Development Rights under these classes.

44. As a result, the proposal would accord with the development plan in this respect.

Amenity of the prospective residential occupiers

45. The Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard requires that a 1 bedroom 2 storey unit should have an internal area of 58sqm. The proposal would exceed this requirement, and as such would be acceptable in this respect.

46. During the processing of the application the location of the parking space was revised so that rather than parking in front of the proposed residential unit, vehilces would park to the side. This was to avoid the need for the vehicle to drive diagonally across the path and required awkward manoeuvres However, in order to make room for the car, the proposed garden depth was reduced.

47. As a result of this, the proposal would have a side amenity space of around 9m, and a front amenity space of around 5.5m in depth. Whilst this is below the 11m typically required, the space to the side would be of good quality, private and would accommodate normal garden activities. Given the size of the proposed dwelling, and the benefit of the revised parking position, the proposal would is not considered harmful in this respect.

Flooding

48. The proposal site is located within flood zone 2. Policy CS26 sets out that development must

be located, designed and laid out to ensure that it is safe; the risk from flooding is minimised whilst not increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere; and that residual risks are safely managed. In addition, the council will require flood resistance and resilience measures and requires that surface water run off to be controlled.

49. An updated Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) was submitted during the processing of this application. In terms of surface water flooding and flooding risks elsewhere, the FRA sets out

that the proposal would not result in an increase of flood risk elsewhere and does this through the provision of SUDs in the form of rainwater harvesting (water butts). In terms of flood risk mitigation and resilient measures, the finished floor level would be no lower than existing, and a number of measures are proposed to minimise damage during flood events. A personal flood emergency plan has been provided and a plan demonstrating the safe evacuation route has been submitted.

50. Taking the submission into account as a whole, the proposal would not result in additional

flood risk elsewhere and would not mitigate the flooding risk to its prospective occupiers. Highways

51. Concerns have been raised that the proposal would result in issues of parking stress during construction and as a result of the development itself.

52. The proposal would provide two parking spaces for the existing dwelling and 1 parking space for the proposed dwelling.

53. The country council’s highways department has assessed the application on safety, capacity and policy grounds and considers that the proposal would be acceptable subject to conditions for the construction of the vehicular access, car and cycle parking, and electric vehicle charging point. As the proposal will utilise the existing access, it is not necessary to impose the condition for the construction of vehicular access or car parking.

54. In terms of disturbance during construction works, given the scale and massing of the proposal, and that a Construction Transport Management Plan (CTMP) was no required for the proposal of a similar scale and massing, that it would not be reasonable to require a CTMP in this instance. However, an informative is recommended advising the agent of the considerate constructor scheme.

Financial considerations

55. Section 70 subsection 2 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that

any local financial considerations are a matter to which local planning authorities must have regard to in determining planning applications; as far as they are material for the application. The weight to be attached to these considerations is a matter for the Council.

56. The New Homes Bonus is a grant paid by central government to local councils for increasing the number of homes and their use. The New Homes Bonus is paid each year for 4 years. It is based on the amount of extra Council Tax revenue raised for new-build homes, conversions and long-term empty homes brought back into use. There is also an extra payment for providing affordable homes. The New Homes Bonus Scheme Grant Determination for 2019/20 is £957,930 (approx.).

57. Local financial considerations are defined as grants from Government or sums payable to the authority under the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). This means that the New Homes Bonus is capable of being a material consideration where relevant. In the current case, the approval of the application would mean that the New Homes Bonus would be payable for the net increase in dwellings from this development.

Matters raised in Representations

58. Concerns were raised that the proposal would result in a loss of trees/ green space/ loss of local garden/garden grabbing. The trees within the site have a modest contribution to the areas character and as a result their loss is not resisted. The proposal is not an area of formal open space, but residential back garden. In this instance, as per application 2018/2404, is it considered such loss of not harmful to the areas character.

59. For a scheme of this size issues of drains/ sewerage are not material to planning, and would

be dealt with through the relevant drainage board.

Conclusion

60. Taking the above into account, and subject to the satisfactory completion of a completed legal

agreement providing a contributing to affordable housing, the proposal would accord with the development plan and is recommended for approval (Recommendation A). If the required legal agreement is not secured within the requisite time that Recommendation B would see the permission be refused for this reason under delegated authority.

The proposed development does require a CIL payment. RECOMMENDATION A Grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory unilateral undertaking for affordable housing within 3 months of the committee resolution. RECOMMENDATION B If a satisfactory unilateral undertaking to secure the required affordable housing contribution has not be completed within 3 months of the committee resolution delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services to refuse planning permission for the following reason(s):

1. The proposal would, by reason of the lack of a Unilateral Undertaking in relation to a financial contribution for affordable housing, would be contrary to the requirements of Policy CS21 of the Core Strategy 2011 and the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2012. Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to receipt of completed legal agreement to secure affordable housing within 3 months of the resolution to grant permission

Conditions/Reasons 1 TIME LIMIT (FULL APPLICATION)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 LIST OF APPROVED PLANS

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans:

Sdc/man/02pl Rev A received on 04/04/2019 Sdc.man/03PL Sdc/MC/04 received on 21st February 2019. Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

3 MATERIALS TO MATCH

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match as nearly as is practically possible those of the existing building to which it is attached, in colour, type, finish and profile.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved of the development in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

4 PD LIMITATION

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no development falling within Part 1, Classes A, B or E of Schedule 2 to the said Order shall be carried out within the curtilage of either the existing or proposed dwelling, unless planning permission is first granted by the Borough Council. Reason: To safeguard the character and amenities of the premises and adjoining properties and to comply with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

5 FLOOD RISK MITIGATION All flood mitigation measures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details set out in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by UK Flood Risk project ref: QFRA 1426 and associated appendices and personal flood plan received on 31st May 2019.

Reason: To reduce the overall and local risk of flooding and to comply with policy CS26 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (adopted 2011) and the Flood Risk SPD (adopted 2016).

6 PROVISION FOR SUSTAINABLE MODES

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until the proposed dwelling is provided with a fast charge socket (current minimum requirements - 7kw Mide 3 with Type 2 connector -230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of sustainable development.

7 PROVISION FOR SUSTAINABLE MODES The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until the cycle parking facilities are provided in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of sustainable development.

8 SCREEN WALLS, FENCES AND PLANTING (DETAILS) BEFORE THE PROPOSED NEW DWELLING IS FIRST OCCUPIED, DETAILS OF THE SITING, HEIGHT AND METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF ANY SCREEN WALLS, FENCES AND PLANTING TO BE ERECTED OR CARRIED OUT ON THE SITE OR BOUNDARIES, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE BOROUGH COUNCIL. SUCH WALLS, FENCES OR PLANTING SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT IS FIRST OCCUPIED AND SHALL BE RETAINED THEREAFTER IN POSITION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BOROUGH COUNCIL, UNLESS OTHERWISE AGREED IN WRITING.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and the environment of the development itself and of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies DM2 and DM6 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.

Informatives 1 NEW VEHICLE CROSSOVERS AND DROPPED KERBS

The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out any works on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to install dropped kerbs. Visit www.surreycc.gov.uk/droppedkerb

2 DEBRIS AND DAMAGE ON THE HIGHWAY The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carried from the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels or badly loaded vehicles.

The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, to recover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning, or repairing highway surfaces and prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149)

3 ELECTRIC VEHICLE POWER SOURCE It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply is sufficient to meet future demands and that any power balancing technology is in place if required. Please refer to: http://www.beama.org.uk/resourcelibary/beama-guide-to-electric-vehicle-infrastructure.html for guidance and further information on charging modes and connector types.

4 CONSIDERATE CONSTRUCTORS SCHEME To avoid undue disturbance and nuisance to the surrounding occupiers during construction, the applicant is advised that contractors abide by and sign up to the considerate Constructors Scheme - https://www.ccscheme.org.uk/