(public pack)agenda document for planning committee, 03/11

James Whiteman

Managing Director

Guildford Borough Council

Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB

www.guildford.gov.uk

Contact Officer:

Sophie Butcher, Democratic Services Officer Tel: 01483 444056

26 October 2021 Dear Councillor

Your attendance is requested at a meeting of the PLANNING COMMITTEE to be held in the Council Chamber, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB on WEDNESDAY 3 NOVEMBER 2021 at 7.00 pm. Yours faithfully

James Whiteman Managing Director

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chairman: Councillor Fiona White Vice-Chairman: Councillor Colin Cross

Councillor Jon Askew Councillor Christopher Barrass Councillor David Bilbé Councillor Chris Blow Councillor Ruth Brothwell Councillor Angela Goodwin

Councillor Angela Gunning Councillor Liz Hogger The Mayor, Councillor Marsha Moseley Councillor Ramsey Nagaty Councillor Maddy Redpath Councillor Pauline Searle Councillor Paul Spooner

Authorised Substitute Members:

Councillor Tim Anderson Councillor Richard Billington The Deputy Mayor, Councillor Dennis Booth Councillor Graham Eyre Councillor Guida Esteves Councillor Andrew Gomm Councillor Steven Lee Councillor Nigel Manning Councillor Ted Mayne

Councillor Bob McShee Councillor Susan Parker Councillor Jo Randall Councillor Tony Rooth Councillor Will Salmon Councillor Deborah Seabrook Councillor Cait Taylor Councillor James Walsh Councillor Catherine Young

QUORUM 5

THE COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK

Vision – for the borough For Guildford to be a town and rural borough that is the most desirable place to live, work and visit in South East England. A centre for education, healthcare, innovative cutting-edge businesses, high quality retail and wellbeing. A county town set in a vibrant rural environment, which balances the needs of urban and rural communities alike. Known for our outstanding urban planning and design, and with infrastructure that will properly cope with our needs. Three fundamental themes and nine strategic priorities that support our vision:

Place-making Delivering the Guildford Borough Local Plan and providing the range of housing that people need, particularly affordable homes

Making travel in Guildford and across the borough easier Regenerating and improving Guildford town centre and other urban

areas Community Supporting older, more vulnerable and less advantaged people in

our community Protecting our environment Enhancing sporting, cultural, community, and recreational facilities Innovation Encouraging sustainable and proportionate economic growth to

help provide the prosperity and employment that people need Creating smart places infrastructure across Guildford Using innovation, technology and new ways of working to improve

value for money and efficiency in Council services Values for our residents

We will strive to be the best Council.

We will deliver quality and value for money services.

We will help the vulnerable members of our community.

We will be open and accountable.

We will deliver improvements and enable change across the borough.

A G E N D A

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS

2 LOCAL CODE OF CONDUCT - DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS

In accordance with the local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda. Any councillor with a DPI must not participate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter. If that DPI has not been registered, you must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting. Councillors are further invited to disclose any non-pecuniary interest which may be relevant to any matter on this agenda, in the interests of transparency, and to confirm that it will not affect their objectivity in relation to that matter.

3 MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6 October 2021 which are to follow. A copy of the minutes will be placed on the dais prior to the meeting and published as part of the supplementary sheets.

4 ANNOUNCEMENTS

To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee.

5 PLANNING AND RELATED APPLICATIONS (Pages 13 - 14)

All current applications between numbers 21/P/00917 which are not included on the above-mentioned List, will be considered at a future meeting of the Committee or determined under delegated powers. Members are requested to consider and determine the Applications set out in the Index of Applications.

5.1 21/P/00917 - Land at Ockham Farm, Green Lane, Ockham, GU23 6PD (Pages 15 - 58)

6 PLANNING APPEAL DECISIONS (Pages 59 - 74)

Committee members are asked to note the details of Appeal Decisions as attached at Item 6.

WEBCASTING NOTICE

This meeting will be recorded for live and/or subsequent broadcast on the Council’s website in accordance with the Council’s capacity in performing a task in the public interest and in line with the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014. The whole of the meeting will be recorded, except where there are confidential or exempt items, and the footage will be on the website for six months. If you have any queries regarding webcasting of meetings, please contact Committee Services.

NOTES: (i) Procedure for determining planning and related applications:

1. A Planning Officer will present the Officer’s report virtually by sharing the

presentation on Microsoft Office Teams as part of the live meeting which all

committee members will be able to see online. For members of the public, able to

dial into the meeting, copies of the presentation will be loaded onto the website to

view and will be published on the Tuesday of the same week prior to the meeting.

Planning officers will make it clear during the course of their presentation which

slides they are referring to at all times.

2. Members of the public who have registered to speak may then address the

meeting in accordance with the agreed procedure for public speaking (a maximum

of two objectors followed by a maximum of two supporters). Public speakers will

be sent an invite by the Democratic Services Officer (DSO) via Microsoft Office

Teams to attend online or via a telephone number and conference ID code as

appropriate to the public speakers needs. Prior to the consideration of each

application which qualifies for public speaking, the DSO will ensure all public

speakers are online. If public speakers cannot access the appropriate equipment

to participate, or owing to unexpected IT issues experienced they cannot

participate in the meeting, they are advised to submit their three-minute speech to

the Democratic Services Officer by no later than midday the day before the

meeting. In such circumstances, the DSO will read out their speech. Alternatively,

public speakers may wish to attend the meeting in person in the Council Chamber.

Public speakers must observe social distancing rules.

3. The Chairman gives planning officer’s the right to reply in response to comments

that have been made during the public speaking session.

4. Any councillor(s) who are not member(s) of the Planning Committee, but who wish to speak on an application, either in or outside of their ward, will be then allowed for no longer than three minutes each. It will be at the Chairman’s discretion to permit councillor(s) to speak for longer than three minutes and will have joined the meeting remotely via MSTeams. [Councillors should notify the Committee Officer, in writing, by no later than midday the day before the meeting of their intention to speak and send the DSO a copy of their speech so it can be read out on their behalf should they lose their wi-fi connection.] If the application is deferred, any councillor(s) who are not member(s) of the Planning Committee will not be permitted to speak when the application is next considered by the Committee.

5. The Chairman will then open up the application for debate. The Chairman will ask

which councillors wish to speak on the application and determine the order of

speaking accordingly. At the end of the debate, the Chairman will check that all

members had had an opportunity to speak should they wish to do so.

(a) No speech shall be longer than three minutes for all Committee members. As

soon as a councillor starts speaking, the DSO will activate the timer. The DSO

will advise when there are 30 seconds remaining and when the three minutes

has concluded;

(b) No councillor to speak more than once during the debate on the application;

(c) Members shall avoid repetition of points made earlier in the debate.

(d) The Chairman gives planning officer’s the right to reply in response to

comments that have been made during the debate, and prior to the vote being

taken.

(e) Once the debate has concluded, the Chairman will automatically move the

officer’s recommendation following the debate on that item. If it is seconded,

the motion is put to the vote. The Chairman will confirm verbally which

councillor has seconded a motion A simple majority vote is required for the

motion to be carried. If it is not seconded or the motion is not carried then the

Chairman will ask for a second alternative motion to be put to the vote. The

vote will be taken by roll call or by affirmation if there is no dissent

In any case where the motion is contrary to officer recommendation that is:

Approval to refusal, or;

Refusal to approval;

Or where the motion proposes additional reasons for refusal, or additional conditions to be included in any planning permission. The following procedure shall be followed:

Where the alternative motion is to propose a refusal, the proposer of the motion shall be expected to state the harm (where applicable) and the relevant policy(ies) to justify the motion. In advance of the vote, provided that any such proposal has been properly moved and seconded, the Chairman shall discuss with relevant officers and the mover and seconder of the motion, the reason(s), conditions (where applicable) and policy(ies) put forward to ensure that they are sufficiently precise, state the harm (where applicable) and support the correct policies to justify the motion. All participants and members of the public will be able to hear the discussion between the Chairman and the relevant officers and the mover and seconder of the motion. Following the discussion the Chairman will put to the Committee the motion and the reason(s) for the decision before moving to the vote. The vote will be taken by roll call or by affirmation, if there is no dissent.

(f) A motion can also be proposed and seconded at any time to defer or adjourn consideration of an application (for example for further information/advice backed by supporting reasons).

(g) Technical difficulties during the meeting. If the Chairman or the DSO identifies a failure of the remote participation facility and a connection to a Committee Member is lost during the meeting, the Chairman will stop the meeting to enable the connection to be restored. If the connection cannot be restored within a reasonable time, the meeting will proceed, provided that it remains quorate. If the Member who was disconnected is subsequently re-connected and they have missed any part of the debate on the matter under discussion, they will not be able to vote on that matter as they would not have heard all the facts.

6. Unless otherwise decided by a majority of councillors present and voting by roll call at the meeting, all Planning Committee meetings shall finish by no later than 10:30pm.

Any outstanding items not completed by the end of the meeting shall be

adjourned to the reconvened or next ordinary meeting of the Committee.

7. In order for a planning application to be referred to the full Council for determination in its capacity as the Local Planning Authority, a councillor must first with a seconder, write/email the Democratic Services Manager detailing the rationale for the request (the proposer and seconder does not have to be a planning committee member).

The Democratic Services Manager shall inform all councillors by email of the request to determine an application by full Council, including the rationale provided for that request. The matter would then be placed as an agenda item for consideration at the next Planning Committee meeting. The proposer and seconder would each be given three minutes to state their case. The decision to refer a planning application to the full Council will be decided by a majority vote of the Planning Committee.

GUIDANCE NOTE For Planning Committee Members

Probity in Planning – Role of Councillors Councillors on the Planning Committee sit as a non-judicial body, but act in a semi-judicial capacity, representative of the whole community in making decisions on planning applications. They must, therefore:

1. act fairly, openly and apolitically;

2. approach each planning application with an open mind, avoid pre-conceived opinions;

3. carefully weigh up all relevant issues;

4. determine each application on its individual planning

merits;

5. avoid undue contact with interested parties; and

6. ensure that the reasons for their decisions are clearly

stated.

The above role applies to councillors who are nominated substitutes on the Planning Committee. Where a councillor, who is neither a member of, nor a substitute on the Planning Committee, attends a meeting of the Committee, he or she is also under a duty to act fairly and openly and avoid any actions which might give rise to an impression of bias or undue influence. Equally, the conduct of members of any working party or committee considering planning policy must be similar to that outlined above relating to the Planning Committee. Reason for Refusal How a reason for refusal is constructed.

A reason for refusal should carefully describe the harm of the development as well as detailing any conflicts with policies or proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision. When formulating reasons for refusal Members will need to: (1) Describe those elements of the proposal that are harmful, e.g. bulk, massing,

lack of something, loss of something. (2) State what the harm is e.g. character, openness of the green belt, retail

function and; (3) The reason will need to make reference to policy to justify the refusal.

Example The proposed change of use would result in the loss of A1 retail frontage at Guildford Town Centre, which would be detrimental to the retail function of the town and contrary to policy SS9 in the Guildford Local Plan. Reason for Approval How a reason for approval is constructed. A reason for approval should carefully detail a summary of the reasons for the grant of planning permission and a summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan, which are relevant to the decision. Example: The proposal has been found to comply with Green Belt policy as it relates to a replacement dwelling and would not result in any unacceptable harm to the openness or visual amenities of the Green Belt. As such the proposal is found to comply with saved policies RE2 and H6 of the Council’s saved Local Plan and national Green Belt policy in the NPPF. Reason for Deferral Applications should only be deferred if the Committee feels that it requires further information or to enable further discussions with the applicant or in exceptional circumstances to enable a collective site visit to be undertaken. Clear reasons for a deferral must be provided with a summary of the policies in the development plan which are relevant to the deferral. .

APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION & RELATED APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE

NOTES:

Officers Report Officers have prepared a report for each planning or related application on the Planning Committee Index which details:-

Site location plan;

Site Description;

Proposal;

Planning History;

Consultations; and

Planning Policies and Considerations.

Each report also includes a recommendation to either approve or refuse the application. Recommended reason(s) for refusal or condition(s) of approval and reason(s) including informatives are set out in full in each report.

Written Representations

Copies of representations received in respect of the applications listed are available for inspection by Councillors at the plans viewing session held prior to the meeting and will also be available at the meeting. Late representations will be summarised in a report which will be circulated at the meeting. Planning applications and any representations received in relation to applications are available for inspection at the Planning Services reception by prior arrangement with the Head of Planning Services.

Background Papers In preparing the reports relating to applications referred to on the Planning Committee Index, the Officers refer to the following background documents:-

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the Localism Act and other current Acts, Statutory Instruments and Circulars as published by the Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG).

Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034.

The South East Plan, Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East (May 2009).

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, as amended (2010).

Consultation responses and other correspondence as contained in the application file, together with such other files and documents which may constitute the history of the application site or other sites in the locality.

Human Rights Act 1998 The Human Rights Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) came into effect in October 2000 when the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) were incorporated into UK Law. The determination of the applications which are the subject of reports are considered to involve the following human rights issues:

1 Article 6(1): right to a fair and public hearing

In the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the hearing in certain circumstances (e.g. in the interest of morals, strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.)

2 Article 8: right to respect for private and family life (including where

the article 8 rights are those of children s.11 of the Children Act 2004)

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. s.11 of the Childrens Act 2004 requires the Council to make arrangements for ensuring that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Furthermore, any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the Council in the discharge of their functions must likewise be provided having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

3 Article 14: prohibition from discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set out in the ECHR shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

4 Article 1 Protocol 1: protection of property;

Every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. However, the state retains the right to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

5 Article 2 Protocol 1: right to education.

No person shall be denied the right to education. Councillors should take account of the provisions of the 1998 Act as they relate to the applications on this agenda when balancing the competing interests of the applicants, any third party opposing the application and the community as a whole in reaching their decision. Any interference with an individual’s human rights under the 1998 Act/ECHR must be just and proportionate to the objective in question and must not be arbitrary,

unfair or oppressive. Having had regard to those matters in the light of the convention rights referred to above your officers consider that the recommendations are in accordance with the law, proportionate and both necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others and in the public interest. Costs In planning appeals the parties involved normally meet their own costs. Most appeals do not result in a costs application. A costs award where justified is an order which states that one party shall pay to another party the costs, in full or part, which has been incurred during the process by which the Secretary of State or Inspector’s decision is reached. Any award made will not necessary follow the outcome of the appeal. An unsuccessful appellant is not expected to reimburse the planning authority for the costs incurred in defending the appeal. Equally the costs of a successful appellant are not bourne by the planning authority as a matter of course. However, where:

A party has made a timely application for costs

The party against whom the award is sought has behaved unreasonably; and

The unreasonable behaviour has directly caused the party applying for the costs

to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process a full or partial

award is likely.

The word “unreasonable” is used in its ordinary meaning as established in the courts in Manchester City Council v SSE & Mercury Communications Limited 1988 JPL 774. Behaviour which is regarded as unreasonable may be procedural or substantive in nature. Procedural relates to the process. Substantive relates to the issues arising on the appeal. The authority is at risk of an award of costs against it if it prevents or delays development, which should clearly be permitted having regard to the development plan. The authority must produce evidence to show clearly why the development cannot be permitted. The authority’s decision notice must be carefully framed and should set out the full reasons for refusal. Reasons should be complete, precise, specific and relevant to the application. The Planning authority must produce evidence at appeal stage to substantiate each reason for refusal with reference to the development plan and all other material considerations. If the authority cannot do so it is at risk of a costs award being made against it for unreasonable behaviour. The key test is whether evidence is produced on appeal which provides a respectable basis for the authority’s stance in the light of R v SSE ex parte North Norfolk DC 1994 2 PLR 78. If one reason is not properly supported but substantial evidence has been produced in support of the others a partial award may be made against the authority. Further advice can be found in the Department of Communities and Local Government Circular 03/2009 and now Planning Practice Guidance: Appeals paragraphs 027-064 inclusive.

This page is intentionally left blank

GUILDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE INDEX

03/11/2021

Item No.

Parish

Applicant Location App.No. Rec. Page

5.1 West Horsley Mr C. White, Antler Homes PLC

Land at Ockham Farm, Green Lane, Ockham, GU23 6PD

21/P/00917 S106 15.

Total Applications for Committee 1

Agenda item number: 5

Agenda item number: 5(1)

21/P/00917 – Land at Oakland Farm, Green Lane, Ockham

Not to scale


App No: 21/P/00917 8 Wk Deadline: 05/11/2021Appn Type: Full ApplicationCase Officer: Becky SouterParish: West Horsley Ward: Clandon & HorsleyAgent : Applicant: Mr C. White

Antler Homes PLCPortland HousePark StreetBagshotGU19 5AQ

Location: Land at Oakland Farm, Green Lane, Ockham, GU23 6PDProposal: Residential development. Demolition of barn and erection of a mix

of 35 dwellings, including 14 affordable with associated accessfrom Green Lane along with pedestrian and cycle access fromOckham Road North and all associated works.

Executive Summary

Reason for referral

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 20 letters ofobjection have been received, contrary to the Officer's recommendation.

Key information

The application site is a 1.5 hectare parcel of land which is located to the south of Green Lane inWest Horsley. The site is located to the rear of the property known as Oakland Farm which is alarge two storey detached dwelling with outbuildings and amenity space. It is accessed directlyfrom Green Lane which itself leads on to Ockham Road North. The land is currently mostly laid tograss and is being used on an informal basis by the residents of Oakland Farm. The site islocated within the 400 metre to five kilometre buffer of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

The site has been inset from the Green Belt and forms part of the allocated site A39 (Land to thenorth of West Horsley) which is to deliver around 120 homes.

The mix of the proposed housing is detailed below:

Proposed Mix1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4+-bed Total

Total dwellings 6 8 15 6 35

Of which...Houses 0 7 15 6 28Apartments 6 1 0 0 7Affordable 6 4 3 1 14

The applicant is providing 14 affordable homes and a policy compliant scheme.


A total of 78 car parking spaces would be provided. Informal open space including a strip parkand natural play space would be provided on the site.

Summary of considerations and constraints

This is an allocated site which now forms part of the settlement area of Horsley.

The application would provide a net gain of 35 residential units, which would be in accordancewith housing delivery commitments in the LPSS, including 14 affordable homes.

The proposed dwellings are considered to provide a good level of internal and external amenityfor future residents, fully compliant with the NDSS. There would be no unacceptable harm toneighbouring residents. Subject to conditions the scheme would also be acceptable in terms ofhighway safety, drainage, trees, ecology and sustainable construction.

Planning contributions of £365,779.23 have been secured to mitigate the impacts of thedevelopment on community, education, the environment and highways.

In all, the application is deemed to be acceptable and for the reasons which will be outlined in thereport, the recommendation is to approve planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION:(i) Subject to a Section 106 Agreement securing the the decision is to:

provision of 40% affordable housing in accordance with the Council'sapproved tenure split;provision of SANG mitigation in accordance with the Thames Basin HeathsSPA Avoidance Strategy, 2017;a contribution towards SAMM;a contribution towards funding a demand responsive bus service;a contribution to early years, primary and secondary education;a contribution towards environmental improvements around the village.

If the terms of the S106 or wording of the planning conditions are significantlyamended as part of ongoing S106 or planning condition(s) negotiations anychanges shall be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of the PlanningCommittee and lead Ward Member.

(ii) That upon completion of the above, the application be determined by the Headof Place.

Approve - subject to the following condition(s) and reason(s) :-

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990as amended by Section 51(1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act2004.


2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with thefollowing approved plans:

PL-01 Rev A -Site Location PlanPL-02 Rev B - Existing Block PlanPL-04 Rev H - Proposed Site PlanPL-05 Rev B - Detail Site Layout Sheet 1PL-06 Rev B - Detail Site Layout Sheet 2PL-07 Rev C - Materials LayoutPL-110 - Plots 1 & 2 Plans PL-111 - Plots 1 & 2 Elevations PL-112 - Plots 3 & 4 Plans PL-113 - Plots 3 & 4 Elevations PL-114 - Plots 5, 6 & 7 Plans PL-115 - Plots 5, 6 & 7 Elevations PL-116 - Plots 8 & 9 Plans PL-117 - Plots 8 & 9 Elevations PL-118 - Plots 10, 11 & 12 Plans PL-119 - Plots 10, 11 & 12 Elevations PL-120 - Plots 13, 14 & 15 Plans PL-121 - Plots 13, 14 & 15 Elevations PL-122 - Plots 16 & 17 Plans PL-123 - Plots 16 & 17 Elevations PL-124 - Plot 18 Plans PL-125 - Plot 18 Elevations PL-126 - Plots 19, 20, 28, 29, 30 & 31 Plans PL-127 - Plots 28,29 ElevationsPL-128 - Plots 19, 20, 30 & 31 ElevationsPL-129 - Plots 21,32 PlansPL-130 - Plots 21,32 ElevationsPL-131 - Plot 22 PlansPL-132 - Plot 22 ElevationsPL-133 - Plot 23 PlansPL-134 - Plot 23 Elevations PL-135 - Plot 24 PlansPL-136 - Plot 24 ElevationsMW.20.0828.TPP – Tree Protection PlanMW.20.0828.TS – Tree Survey Planlandscape Proposals ANT1223-11 (Sheets 1&2)Landscape Management Plan ANT1223,Landscape Specification ANT1223Landscape Management Plan ANT1223-25

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with theapproved plans and in the interests of proper planning.


3. No development shall commence until written confirmation has been obtainedfrom the Local Planning Authority that Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space(SANG) to mitigate the impact of the development has been secured and nodwelling shall be occupied before written confirmation has been obtained fromthe Local Planning Authority that the works required to bring the land up toacceptable SANG standard have been completed.

Reason: This is required as a pre-commencement condition as the developmentis only acceptable if the impact on the Thames Basin Heaths Special ProtectionArea can be mitigated. This is reliant on the provision of SANG. Avoidanceworks associated with development need to be carried out prior to theoccupation of the development so that measures can cater for increasednumber of residents to avoid adverse impact on the Thames Basin HeathsSpecial Protection Area.

4. No above ground works shall take place (excluding ground works andconstruction up to damp proof course (dpc) and the construction of the access)until details and samples of the proposed external facing and roofing materialsincluding colour and finish have been submitted to and approved in writing bythe Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out inaccordance with the approved details and samples.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

5. No above ground works shall take place (excluding ground works andconstruction up to damp proof course (dpc) and the construction of the access)until written details and/or samples of:

a) fenestration details; andb) fascias, soffits and gutters

to be used externally have been submitted to and approved in writing by theLocal Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out using theapproved external materials.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

6. No above ground works shall take place (excluding ground works andconstruction up to damp proof course (dpc) and the construction of theaccesses) until details of all boundary treatments within and around the sitehave been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance the agreedtimetable. The approved scheme shall be maintained in perpetuity.

Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and to ensure a highquality design.


7. The development shall be completed in accordance with the submitted hard andsoft landscape proposals completed by LVIA, reference ANT1223-11 (Sheets1&2); ANT1223 - Management Plan; ANT1223 - Specification and ANT1223-25- Landscape Management Plan. The approved landscape scheme (with theexception of planting, seeding and turfing) shall be implemented in accordancewith the phasing and implementation plan and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of anappropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of thelocality.

8. All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out in the first plantingand seeding season following the first occupation of the relevant phase of thedevelopment, in accordance with the landscape phasing and implementationplan or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any treesor plants which, within a period of ten years after planting, are removed, die orbecome seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the Local PlanningAuthority, shall be replaced in the next available planting sooner with others ofsimilar size, species and number, unless otherwise agreed in writing by theLocal Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of anappropriate landscape scheme in the interests of the visual amenities of thelocality.

9. Before the first occupation of the development hereby approved, detailed plansfor the natural playspace shall be submitted to and approved in writing by theLocal Planning Authority. This shall include the laying out of the space, as wellas a ten year Management Plan. The natural playspace shall be fully installedand made operational on or before the 20th residential unit is occupied and shallbe retained in good working order in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure that the natural playspace is delivered to an acceptablestandard.

10. The approved Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plancompleted by Mark Welby Consultants must be adhered to in full, and may onlybe modified by written agreement from the LPA. No development shallcommence until tree protection measures, and any other pre-commencementmeasures as set out in the AMS and TPP, have been installed/implemented.The protection measures shall be maintained in accordance with the approveddetails, until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been movedfrom the site.

Reason: To protect the trees on site which are to be retained in the interests ofthe visual amenities of the locality. It is considered necessary for this to be apre-commencement condition because the adequate protection of trees prior toworks commencing on site goes to the heart of the planning permission


11. Before the occupation of the 35th dwelling of the development a certificatedemonstrating that Secured by Design (physical security) has been successfullyachieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is acceptable in terms of crime andsafety.

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting oramending that Order with or without modification), no additional above groundfloor windows or other form of openings shall be inserted in the northernelevation or roof of plot one.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of the existing dwellings to thenorth of the plot noted above.

13. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and untilthe proposed vehicular access to Green Lane has been constructed andprovided with visibility zones in accordance with the approved drawing number1203024-08, and thereafter the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clearof any obstruction over 1.05m high.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safetynor cause inconvenience to other highway users.

14. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and untilthe proposed junction improvement, including the passing places on GreenLane, is fully implemented and made available for use all in accordance withapproved drawing number 1902024-05.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety norcause inconvenience to other highway users.

15. The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and untilspace has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved drawingnumber PL-04, for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that theymay enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking and turningareas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety norcause inconvenience to other highway users.


16. No dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied unless and until securecycle parking has been provided for the dwellings in accordance with approveddrawing PL-06. Thereafter the approved parking for bicycles shall be retained inperpetuity and maintained for their designated purposes.

Reason: To ensure that satisfactory facilities for the parking of cycles areprovided and to travel by means other than private motor vehicles.

17. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until eachof the proposed houses which include on-plot parking are provided with a fastcharge socket (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance witha scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the LocalPlanning Authority.

Reason: To encourage the use of electric cars in order to reduce carbonemissions.

18. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied unless and until atleast 20% of the available off-plot parking spaces are provided with a fastcharge socket (current minimum requirement: 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2connector - 230 v AC 32 amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance witha scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local PlanningAuthority.

Reason: To encourage the use of electric cars in order to reduce carbonemissions.

19. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport ManagementPlan, to include details of:

(a) parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors(b) loading and unloading of plant and materials(c) storage of plant and materials(d) programme of works (including measures for traffic management)(e) provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones(f) HGV deliveries and hours of operation(g) vehicle routing(h) measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway(i) before and after construction condition surveys of the highway and acommitment to fundthe repair of any damage caused(j) on-site turning for construction vehicles

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction of thedevelopment.

Reason: In order that the development should not prejudice highway safety norcause inconvenience to other highway users. This is a pre-commencementcondition as this information needs to be agreed before construction begins.


20. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured theimplementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with aWritten Scheme of Investigation which has been submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To allow adequate archaeological investigation before anyarchaeological remains are disturbed by the approved development.

21. Before the commencement of the development hereby approved, the followingshall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

details confirming that the final worst-case monitoring visit has taken placeand written confirmation that gas protection is not considered necessary;anddetails of the management of topsoil on the site. Should remediation oftopsoil be required, the Local Planning Authority will require any remediationworks undertaken at this site to be independently verified and validated.Submission of documentary evidence will be required detailing that theremediation scheme has been implemented and satisfactorily completedbefore each of the approved dwellings are occupied.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to neighbouring land andfuture users of the land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can becarried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and otheroffsite receptors. This is required to be a pre-commencement condition asdetails and any required mitigation will need to be agreed before constructionworks begin.

22. If during development any suspect contamination, buried structures, sources ofchemical pollution or similar such material (not previously identified), is found tobe present on the site then no further development, unless otherwise agreed inwriting with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out until the developerhas submitted a written remediation scheme and obtained written approval fromthe Local Planning Authority. The remediation scheme shall detail the natureand extent of the discovered problem (unsuspected contamination) and how itshall be dealt with. In such a scenario, a written validation report shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before theoccupation of the development, detailing how the approved remediation schemehas been fully implemented.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to neighbouring land andfuture users of the land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters,property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can becarried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and otheroffsite receptors.


23. The development hereby permitted shall not commence ( with the exception ofsite clearance and set up works) until details of the design of a surface waterdrainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. The design must satisfy the SuDS Hierarchy and becompliant with the national Non- Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS,NPPF and Ministerial Statement on SuDS. The required drainage details shallinclude:

a) evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the 1 in 30& 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events and 10%allowance for urban creep, during all stages of the development. The finalsolution should follow the principles set out in the approved drainagestrategy. Associated discharge rates and storage volumes shall beprovided using a maximum discharge rate of 1.8 l/s/ha

b) detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finaliseddrainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters,levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of anyflow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (silt traps,inspection chambers etc.), additionally details of the watercourse diversionshould be submitted.

c) a plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than designevents or during blockage) and how property on and off site will beprotected.

d) details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimesfor the drainage system.

e) details of how the drainage system will be protected during constructionand how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site will bemanaged before the drainage system is operational.

Reason: To ensure the design meets the national Non-Statutory TechnicalStandards for SuDS and the final drainage design does not increase flood riskon or off site.

24. Prior to the first occupation of each phase of the development, a verificationreport carried out by a qualified drainage engineer must be submitted to andapproved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate thatthe drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme (or detailany minor variations), provide the details of any management company andstate the national grid reference of any key drainage elements (surface waterattenuation devices/areas, flow restriction devices and outfalls).

Reason: To ensure the Drainage System is constructed to the NationalNon-Statutory Technical Standards for SuDS.


25. The development shall not be occupied until confirmation has been submitted toand approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that either:

1. all wastewater network upgrades required to accommodate the additionalflows from the development have been completed; or

2. a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with theLocal Planning Authority in consultation with Thames Water to allowdevelopment to be occupied. Where a development and infrastructurephasing plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than inaccordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

The development shall only be completed in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: Network reinforcement works are likely to be required to accommodatethe proposed development. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessaryin order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents.

26. The development hereby permitted must comply with regulation 36 paragraph2(b) of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) to achieve a waterefficiency of 110 litres per occupant per day (described in part G2 of theApproved Documents 2015). Before occupation, a copy of the wholesome waterconsumption calculation notice (described at regulation 37 (1) of the BuildingRegulations 2010 (as amended)) shall be provided to the planning departmentto demonstrate that this condition has been met.

Reason: To improve water efficiency in accordance with the Council'sSupplementary Planning Guidance 'Sustainable Design and Construction' 2011.

27. The development hereby approved shall only be constructed in full accordancewith the measures and principles set out in the submitted Sustainability andEnergy Statement (prepared by bluesky unlimited, dated 19.04.21). The agreedmeasures shall be made available for use before the first occupation of each ofthe dwellings and shall be retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes sustainable design andconstruction principles into account, including climate change adaption andreducing carbon emissions.

28. No development shall commence (excluding ground works and construction upto damp proof course (dpc) and the construction of the access) until a schemeincluding plans, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority for the installation of a High Speed wholly Fibre broadbandTo The Premises (FTTP) connection to the development hereby approved.Thereafter, the infrastructure shall be laid out in accordance with the approveddetails and be made available for use on the first occupation of each building.

Reason: To ensure that the new development is provided with high qualitybroadband services and digital connectivity.


29. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, a plan showing thelocation of the Building Regulations ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2)and the Building Regulations M4(3)(2) wheelchair accessible dwellings shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thedevelopment shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to provide a flexible housing stock to meet a wide range ofaccommodation needs.

30. Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted,including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shallnot take place other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays toFridays and between 0800 and 1330 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays orBank or National Holidays.

Reason: To protect the neighbours from noise and disturbance outside thepermitted hours during the construction period.

31. Prior to the commencement of the development, a Reasonable AvoidanceMeasures document to cover Great Crested Newts and Reptiles shall besubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent adverse impacts on protected species.

32. No above ground works shall take place (excluding ground works andconstruction up to damp proof course (dpc) and the construction of the access)until a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan (to comply with 'Bats and Lighting inthe UK - Bats and Built Environment Series and current guidelines establishedfor rural areas by the Institute of Lighting Professionals) has been submitted toand approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shallinclude a timetable for the implementation of the works. The development shallthen be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To prevent adverse impacts on protected species, in particular bats,resulting from the proposed development works. In addition, to ensure thatexcessive light pollution does not result in harm to the character of the area.


33. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a detailedConstruction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted toand approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shallonly be carried out in accordance with the details of the CEMP.

The CEMP should include, but not be limited to:

a) Map showing the location of all of the ecological featuresb) Risk assessment of the potentially damaging construction activitiesc) Practical measures to avoid and reduce impacts during constructiond) Location and timing of works to avoid harm to biodiversity featurese) Responsible persons and lines of communicationf) Use of protected fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

Reason: In the interests of preventing ecological harm from constructionactivities.

34. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Landscapeand Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved inwriting by the Local Planning Authority, this shall include a precautionaryworking methodology and details of measures to enhance biodiversity. Thedevelopment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details andthe enhancement scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation ofthe development hereby approved.

Reason: To prevent adverse impacts on protected species, ecology andbiodiversity both on and around the site.

Informatives:1. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town and

Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach todevelopment proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactivemanner by:

Offering a pre application advice serviceWhere pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has beenfollowed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising duringthe course of the applicationWhere possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issuesidentified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessarynegotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significantchanges to an application is required.

In this case pre-application advice was sought and provided which addressedsome initial issues. Further issues were identified during the consultation stage ofthe application. Officers have worked with the applicant to overcome these issuesand the proposal is now deemed to be acceptable.


2. If you need any advice regarding Building Regulations please do not hesitate tocontact Guildford Borough Council Building Control on 01483 444545 [email protected].

3. Thames Water Informative:

A Groundwater Risk Management Permit from Thames Water will be required fordischarging groundwater into a public sewer. Any discharge made without a permitis deemed illegal and may result in prosecution under the provisions of the WaterIndustry Act 1991. We would expect the developer to demonstrate what measureshe will undertake to minimise groundwater discharges into the public sewer. Permitenquiries should be directed to Thames Water’s Risk Management Team bytelephoning 020 3577 9483 or by emailing [email protected] forms should be completed on line via www.thameswater.co.uk. Pleaserefer to the Wholesale; Business customers; Groundwater discharges section.

4. County Highway Informatives:

The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out anyworks on the highway. The applicant is advised that prior approval must beobtained from the Highway Authority before any works are carried out on anyfootway, footpath, carriageway, or verge to form a vehicle crossover or to installdropped kerbs. Please seewww.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/vehicle-crossovers-or-dropped-kerbs.

The developer is reminded that it is an offence to allow materials to be carriedfrom the site and deposited on or damage the highway from uncleaned wheels orbadly loaded vehicles. The Highway Authority will seek, wherever possible, torecover any expenses incurred in clearing, cleaning or repairing highway surfacesand prosecutes persistent offenders. (Highways Act 1980 Sections 131, 148, 149).

The permission hereby granted shall not be construed as authority to carry out anyworks on the highway or any works that may affect a drainage channel/culvert orwater course. The applicant is advised that a permit and, potentially, a Section 278agreement must be obtained from the Highway Authority before any works arecarried out on any footway, footpath, carriageway, verge or other land forming partof the highway. All works on the highway will require a permit and an applicationwill need to submitted to the County Council's Street Works Team up to 3 monthsin advance of the intended start date, depending on the scale of the worksproposed and the classification of the road. Please seewww.surreycc.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-permits-and-licences/the-traffic-management-permit-scheme.

The applicant is also advised that Consent may be required under Section 23 ofthe Land Drainage Act 1991. Please seewww.surreycc.gov.uk/people-and-community/emergency-planning-and-community-safety/floodingadvice

The developer is advised that as part of the detailed design of the highway worksrequired by the above condition(s), the County Highway Authority may requirenecessary accommodation works to street lights, road signs, road markings,highway drainage, surface covers, street trees, highway verges, highway surfaces,surface edge restraints and any other street furniture/equipment.


It is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that the electricity supply issufficient to meet future demands and that any power balancing technology is inplace if required. Please refer to:http://www.beama.org.uk/resourceLibrary/beama-guide-to-electric-vehicle-infrastructure.html for guidance and further information on charging modes and connectortypes.

Officer's Report

Site description

The application site is a 1.5 hectare parcel of land which is located to the south of Green Lane inWest Horsley. The site is located to the rear of the property known as Oakland Farm which is alarge two storey detached dwelling with outbuildings and amenity space. It is accessed directlyfrom Green Lane which itself leads on to Ockham Road North. The land is currently mostly laid tograss and is being used on an informal basis by the residents of Oakland Farm.

To the north-east of the site is a small cul-de-sac of bungalow style dwellings which are alsoaccessed from Green Lane. To the east is an undeveloped paddock which is also laid to grassand to the south-east are a number of detached residential dwellings. To the west of the site isan area of woodland which on the Priority Habitat Inventory is noted as being a deciduouswoodland.

The site is located within the 400 metre to five kilometre buffer of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA.

Proposal

Demolition of barn and erection of a mix of 35 dwellings, including 14 affordable with associatedaccess from Green Lane along with pedestrian and cycle access from Ockham Road North andall associated works.

The proposed development would be accessed from Green Lane using the existing entry into theexisting dwelling (Oakland Farm). The access road serving the new development would utilisethe existing track which runs along the western side of Oakland Farm. From the new access, anentry into Oakland Farm would be maintained, this would then proceed south and would form aloop where the dwellings would front onto.

The proposal will include a mix of dwellings and apartments which would be situated withinbuildings that also have the appearance of two storey houses. A total of 14 of the proposeddwellings would be affordable, which equates to 40%. The proposed mix is set out in the tablebelow.

Proposed Mix1-bed 2-bed 3-bed 4+-bed Total

Total dwellings 6 8 15 6 35

Of which...Houses 0 7 15 6 28Apartments 6 1 0 0 7Affordable 6 4 3 1 14


As will be discussed below, the proposal forms a part of a larger site which is allocated in theLocal Plan for approximately 120 dwellings. While this site will not have a vehicular connection tothe larger part of the allocation, the applicant has shown pedestrian connections between thesites.

It should be noted that at the request of the Local Planning Authority, the proposal has beenamended during the course of the assessment. The following are a summary of the mainchanges:

plots 1-4 were moved to the west and plots 8-12 southparking for plots 1-4 and 8-11 re-located into a parking court.the tenure split of the affordable units was changed from 9 (affordable rent) and 5 (sharedownership) to 10 (affordable rent) and 4 (shared ownership).this enabled an improvement to the site in terms of reducing the dominance of car parkingwithin the street scene, increased the distance between proposed plots 1-4 and the existingproperties in Green Lane and enabled increased opportunities for soft landscaping to thefront gardens of plots 1-4 and 8-12.

Relevant planning history

No relevant planning history.

Consultations

Statutory consultees

County Highway Authority, Surrey County Council: No objections raised. This is subject toconditions and a contribution of £70,000 towards a demand responsive bus service.

Natural England: No objections raised, subject to the development complying with the adoptedThames Basin Heaths SPA SPD.

Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), Surrey County Council: No objections raised, subject tostandard conditions.

County Archaeologist, Surrey County Council: No objections raised subject to condition. In orderto clarify the archaeological potential of the site the archaeology report submitted by theapplicant recommends that further archaeological investigations are required and as such atrial trench evaluation would be appropriate to clarify the nature extent and significance of anyarchaeology that may be present. This will enable suitable mitigation measures to bedeveloped for the site should significant remains be found. These mitigation measures mayinvolve more detailed excavation of any archaeological remains, but in the event of a find ofexceptional significance then preservation in situ is the preferred option.

Environment Agency: Unable to provide a detailed response. Generic information on flood risk,sequential tests and safe access and egress has been provided. This issue will be discussed ingreater detail in the report.

Internal consultees

Head of Environmental Health and Licensing: No objections raised. It is noted that conditions willbe required to control possible contamination.


Operational Services, Recycling and Waste: No objections raised. It is noted that conditions havebeen recommended regarding no parking on the road during waste collection days andmaintenance of trees and hedges. [Officer note: These are not considered to be appropriate tomeet the five tests and it is considered the development would be acceptable in this regardwithout these conditions.]

Non-statutory consultees

NHS, Royal Surrey: No objection to the proposal. Request to secure a contribution of £71,938.65towards improving facilities at the hospital.

Thames Water: Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing foul water networkinfrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal. However, Thames Waterhave recommended a condition which would address this issue. Thames Water also note thatthey would expect the developer to demonstrate what measures will be undertaken to minimisegroundwater discharges into the public sewer. They note that this matter could be resolved by theaddition of an informative to any planning permission which is granted.

Parish Councils

West Horsley Parish Council: The Parish Council objects to the application. The followingconcerns are noted:

concerns regarding flooding and flood risk;no custom / self-build properties are proposed;proposal does not represent a high-quality design due to: the suburban, formal pattern ofdevelopment; an unsuccessful transition to the countryside and the Green Belt beyond; andthe increased scale and height does not reflect adjoining buildings;proposal does not contribute to the delivery of an integrated and accessible transport system.There is no proposed improvement of existing cycle and walking routes to local facilities,services and the station to encourage alternative sustainable modes of transport;impact on light pollution;car dominated design;loss of existing trees;unacceptable housing mix proposed; andnegative impact on ecology and biodiversity net gain not demonstrated.

East Horsley Parish Council: The Parish Council objects to the application. The followingconcerns are noted:

the number of dwellings proposed is 55% higher than suggested in the allocation [OfficerNote: The site forms part of a larger allocation for approximately 120 dwellings. This is thefirst large development to come forward as part of this specific allocation so at present, thereis no way to calculate if the proposal will result in more dwellings on the wider site than theallocation suggests. In addition, it is noted that the figure noted in the allocation is anapproximation and so long as the proposal is acceptable on planning grounds there is nolegitimate reason to restrict the number of units based on the figure set out in the allocation[;proposed dwellings are too tall, leading to a mix which is dominated by larger dwellings;the proposal is suburban in nature and fails to respect the rural character of the surroundings;cumulative impact on local infrastructure has been ignored. No development on the WaterlooFarm site, including Oakland Farm, should come forward until the capacity constraints on keyelements of local infrastructure have been satisfactorily addressed; andan analysis of the planning balance requires the application be refused. *


Ockham Parish Council: The Parish Council objects to the application. The following concernsare noted:

inadequate infrastructure provision;increase traffic and resulting impact on conservation area;proposal will exacerbate flooding concerns;highway safety issues;increased congestion on surrounding roads;density is too high and adverse impact on character of the surrounds;inadequate parking provision;significant increase in light pollution;loss of trees and wildlife andhousing numbers in the Local Plan are overstated.

Third party comments

52 letters of representation have been received raising a number of objections and concerns.The principal issues are summarised below:

concerns that traffic modelling has not been properly addressed;concerns regarding the adequacy of the submitted Transport Statement;Green Lane is a single track road and can not accommodate the proposed level of vehiclemovements;highway safety concerns;increased level of traffic;flooding and drainage concerns;lack of infrastructure to accommodate the development (schools, GPs, train station etc);poor connection to existing village facilities resulting in the development being car reliant;concerns regarding housing mix;application should be 'held' until Local Plan is reviewed [Officer Note: The Council has a dutyto determine planning applications as swiftly as possible. The review of the Local Plan is not avalid reason to delay determination];proposal cannot be considered without knowing the development plans for the rest of thisallocation;proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area;proposal not in keeping with rural character of the surroundings;adverse impact on ecologyadverse impact on the Green Belt [Officer Note: The application site is not located within theGreen Belt];additional housing is not needed;widening of Green Lane not acceptable;other applications on Green Lane have been refused based on their impact on the Green Belt[Officer Note: The application site is not located within the Green Belt];poor layout and design;over-development of the plot;impact on neighbouring stables / riding school;impact on neighbouring amenity - with specific reference to loss of privacy;concerns regarding light and air pollution;piecemeal development of allocated site;areas of Green Lane are owned by residents [Officer Note: This is a private civil matterbetween the parties involved];insufficient parking;lack of community consultation;


the proposal ignores the Neighbourhood Plan and is contrary to it; andpersistent local perceptions that the village is being singled out for persecution by GBCplanners and SCC because of residents’ opposition to the Local Plan. Compared withcomparable councils, and despite the change of political management since 2019, GBCplanning has a local reputation for extreme pro-developer bias going well beyond statutoryrequirements. [Officer Note: The application has been assessed on its own individual meritsand against relevant local and national policies].

Following the receipt of amended plans and information a further consultation was undertaken.The following is a summary of the comments received relating to the amended plans:

West Horsley Parish Council: Nothing that alleviates or seeks to address the initial concerns ofthe Parish Council, or that respects the policies within the Neighbourhood Plan. The ParishCouncil therefore continue to object to the application.

Ockham Parish Council: Previous comments made still apply. Endorse objections submitted byWest Horsley Parish Council.

A total of 14 additional objections have been received which note the following concerns:

net gain areas nothing more than labelling land that the applicant cannot build on;new plan is worse than previous one;pedestrian connection through the land to the east is not within the gift of the applicants;possibility of adding extensions would change the housing mix;flooding needs to be taken more seriously; andmoving the plots away from the eastern boundary is an improvement, but it brings a parkingarea closer to the boundary with the neighbouring dwellings with resulting noise anddisturbance impacts.

Planning policies

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2021:Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable developmentChapter 4. Decision-makingChapter 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homesChapter 8. Promoting healthy and safe communitiesChapter 9. Promoting sustainable transportChapter 11. Making effective use of landChapter 12. Achieving well designed placesChapter 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal changeChapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

South East Plan 2009:Policy NRM6 Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area

Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (LPSS), 2015-2034:The policies considered relevant to this proposal are set out below.

Policy S1 Presumption in favour of sustainable developmentPolicy S2 Planning for the borough - our spatial strategyPolicy H1 Homes for allPolicy H2 Affordable homesPolicy P4 Flooding, flood risk and groundwater protection zonesPolicy P5 Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area


Policy D1 Place shapingPolicy D2 Sustainable design, construction and energyPolicy ID3 Sustainable transport for new developmentsPolicy ID4 Green and blue infrastructure

Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007):

Although the Council has now adopted the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites2015-2034 (LPSS), some policies of the saved Local Plan 2003 continue to be relevant to theassessment of planning applications and carry full weight. The extant policies which are relevantto this proposal are set out below.

Policy G1 General standards of developmentPolicy G5 Design codePolicy R2 Recreational open space provision in relation to large residential developmentsPolicy NE4 Species protection

West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan (WHNP):WH2 - Design management in the village settlementWH4 - Housing mixWH12 - Green and blue infrastructure networkWH13 - Sustainable urban drainageWH14 - BiodiversityWH15 - Dark skies

Supplementary planning documents:National Design Guide, 2019Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPDClimate Change, Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy SPD 2020Planning Contributions SPDVehicle Parking Standards SPDResidential Design SPG

Planning considerations

The main planning considerations in this case are:

the principle of developmenthousing needimpact on the character of the area and design of the proposallandscape and visual impactimpact on neighbouring amenity and amenity of proposalhighway/parking considerations flooding and drainage considerationssustainability and energyopen space provisionimpact on ecologyimpact on trees and vegetationThames Basin Heaths SPAplanning contributions and legal testsbalancing exerciseconclusion


The principle of development

With the adoption of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 (LPSS),this site is no longer designated as being within the Green Belt. The LPSS has allocated this siteunder policy A39, for approximately 120 homes, including self-build and custom house buildingplots. Policy A39 also sets out that development of this site should incorporate the followingrequirements:

appropriate mitigation for flood risk and flood risk management, and regard to therecommendations of the Level 2 SFRA;avoid development in flood zones 2 and 3 (following detailed modelling of the flood zoneextents);no increase in flood risk on site or elsewhere; andappropriate surface water flooding mitigation measures, with specific regard to the GuildfordSurface Water Management Plan and Level 2 SFRA.

The opportunity for the allocation is noted as being for the reduction of flood risk on site andelsewhere and the extension of the existing 30mph speed limit past the site access.

It is noted that at paragraph 201, the Report on the Examination of the LPSS states that (thereferences for the allocations have since been updated. Allocation A39 was previously referencedas A40) 'policy A37 Land to the rear of Bell and Colvill, West Horsley, policy A38 Land to the westof West Horsley, policy A39 Land near Horsley railway station, East Horsley and policy A40 Landto the north of West Horsley are all moderate-sized housing allocations adjacent to the twovillages. They are well-enclosed sites; A37 is surrounded by development, A38 and A40 havedevelopment on three sides and A39 has development to the east and north and the railway lineto the south. The allocations would be proportionate to the existing size of the villages and inevery case they would result in a more logical and defensible Green Belt boundary. A38, A39 andA40 are within easy walking distance of Horsley station and local shops; A37 is within cyclingdistance. They would provide much needed housing in locations close to village facilities. For allthese reasons there are exceptional circumstances to alter the Green Belt boundaries to providefor these allocations'.

As noted above, 35 dwellings are proposed through this application. A number of comments havebeen received that given the size of this site compared to the whole allocation, it is adisproportionately high number of units. While this argument is acknowledged, it is noted that thefigure set out in the allocation is a approximation of the number of dwellings that may beaccommodated on a site. However, it is not a maximum figure and where it can be demonstratedthat a design and layout can be facilitated without harm and in a sustainable manner, then theprovision of more dwellings than is suggested by the allocation need not necessarily be aconcern. The suitability and acceptability of the proposal will be considered in detail below andthe same process will be followed for any future proposals which come forward as part of theallocation.

Therefore, subject to compliance with the above requirements of policy A39 and relevant localand national policies, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.


Housing need

Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that 'to support the Government's objective of significantlyboosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land cancome forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirementsare addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay'. Paragraph62 goes on to note that 'the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in thecommunity should be assessed and reflected in planning policies (including, but not limited to,those who require affordable housing, families with children, older people, students, people withdisability, service families, travellers, people who rent their homes and people wishing tocommission or build their own homes)'.

The Guilford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites was adopted by Council on 25 April 2019.The Plan carries full weight as part of the Council’s Development Plan. The Local Plan 2003policies that are not superseded are retained and continue to form part of the development plan(see Appendix 8 of the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites for superseded Local Plan 2003 policies).As part of the allocation under Policy A39, the proposal will make important contribution tomeeting the housing requirement which is identified in the Local Plan and this must be givenweight in favour of the proposal.

The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply with an appropriate buffer.This supply is assessed as 7.34 years based on most recent evidence as reflected in the updatedGBC LAA (2020). In addition to this, the Government’s recently published Housing Delivery Testindicates that Guildford’s 2020 measurement is 90%. For the purposes of NPPF footnote 7, thisis therefore greater than the threshold set out in paragraph 222 (75%). Therefore, the Plan andits policies are regarded as up-to-date in terms of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

Affordable housing

Policy H2 of the LPSS seeks at least 40 per cent of the homes on application sites to beaffordable, with the mix in tenures being the same as set out above. Policy H2 also states that'the tenure and number of bedrooms of the affordable homes provided on each qualifying sitemust contribute, to the Council's satisfaction, towards meeting the mix of affordable housingneeds identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2015, or subsequent affordablehousing needs evidence'.

The proposal generates a requirement for 14 affordable properties on the site and this is beingmet by the applicant, in compliance with policy H2 of the LPSS. In terms of the tenures, theapplicant proposes 10 affordable rent properties and 4 dwellings for shared ownership. Thismeets with the Council's 70/30 tenure split. The proposed affordable units are focused in an areain the middle of the site, and would be situated between two areas of market houses.

The Council's Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager raises no objection to the application.

As such, the proposal is considered to be compliant with policy H2 of the LPSS in this regard.


Dwelling mix

Policy H1 of the LPSS states that 'new residential development is required to deliver a widechoice of homes to meet a range of accommodation needs as set out in the latest StrategicHousing Market Assessment (SHMA). New development should provide a mix of housingtenures, types and sizes appropriate to the site size, characteristics and location'. Policy WH4 ofthe Neighbourhood Plan states that 'proposals for new residential development within the definedsettlement boundary of West Horsley will be supported, provided they have had full regard to theneed to deliver 'open market one, two and three bedroom market homes and bungalows suited tooccupation by younger families and older households'. The proposed dwelling mix for thedevelopment, as well as the SHMA requirement, is provided below.

Table 1Overall Housing Mix No. SHMA % Req Provided %1 bed 6 20 17.142 bed 8 30 22.863 bed 14 35 404 bed + 7 15 20Total 35

Table 2Market Mix No. SHMA % Req Provided %1 bed 0 10 02 bed 4 30 19.053 bed 11 40 52.384 bed + 6 20 28.57Total 21

Table 3Affordable Mix No. SHMA % Req Provided %1 bed 6 40 42.862 bed 4 30 28.573 bed 3 25 21.434 bed + 1 5 7.14Total 14

For this application it is noted that the overall mix (Table 1) is skewed towards larger dwellings,with a relative over-provision of three and four bedroom dwellings and an under-supply ofparticularly two bedroom properties. In addition, while the proposed mix of affordable dwellings(Table 3) is generally reflective of the SHMA, the market mix (Table 2) also displays a higherproportion of larger properties, with no one bedroom dwellings and only four two bedroomdwellings proposed.

This assessment must be framed in light of the SHMA and how it should be applied across thehousing market area. It is noted that in the Inspector’s Final Report (paragraph 48) on the LPSShe stated 'as regards housing mix, the policy is not prescriptive but seeks a mix of tenure, typesand sizes of dwelling, which the text indicates will be guided by the strategic housing marketassessment. The policy also seeks an appropriate amount of accessible and adaptable dwellingsand wheelchair user dwellings'. The SHMA mix is to be achieved over the whole of the housingmarket area and over the lifetime of the plan. It is not feasible or practical to require every site torigidly meet the identified mix in the SHMA and this is reflected in the Inspector's commentsnoted above.


The flexibility set out in the policy must be used to achieve an acceptable mix across theborough.

With the above context in mind it is acknowledged that the proposal would not be ideal in termsof its mix and specifically the lack of smaller sized market units as part of the scheme. Inparticular, it is noted that policy WH2 of the Neighbourhood Plan does specifically require openmarket one, two and three bedroom market homes and bungalows suited to occupation byyounger families and older households. The proposal would therefore not fully meet therequirements of this policy. This will be balanced against other matters at the end of this report.

Accessible units

Policy H1 of the LPSS requires that 'on residential development sites of 25 homes or more 10%of new homes will be required to meet Building Regulations M4(2) category 2 standard'accessible and adaptable dwellings' and 5% of new homes will be required to meet BuildingRegulations M4(3)(b) category 3 wheelchair user accessible dwellings standard'. The applicanthas confirmed compliance with the above requirements and this can be secured by condition.

Self / custom builds

Policy H1(9) of the LPSS states that 'self-build and custom housebuilding will be supported if theproposed development has no adverse effect on the local character. On development sites of100 homes or more 5% of the total homes shall be available for sale as self-build and customhousebuilding plots whilst there is an identified need. For phased development, selfbuild plotsmust be delivered and serviced at the earliest stage possible. Self-build and customhousebuilding plots are encouraged on smaller residential development sites'.

It is noted that this site forms part of a larger allocation for approximately 120 units, which itappears is split in several land ownerships. As this proposal for 35 dwellings does not trigger theengagement of policy H1(9), it would not be reasonable to force the provision of self or custombuild properties as part of this development. While the Local Planning Authority has asked thedeveloper to provide the number of self / custom build properties which would be proportionate tothe overall allocation, this suggestion has been declined. However, as noted above, given thewording of the policy, Officers do not believe that the proposal is inconsistent with H1(9) andthere is no conflict in this regard.

Overall, the proposal is considered to meet with the NPPFs objective of boosting the supply ofhomes, which meet the needs of groups with specific housing needs. In this regard the proposalis consistent with policy H1 of the LPSS. However, it is noted that the proposed dwelling mix isnot ideal and this will need to be considered in the balance and against policy WH4 of theNeighbourhood Plan.

Impact on the character of the area and design of the proposal

Paragraph 124 of the NPPF states that 'the creation of high quality buildings and places isfundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is akey aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helpsmake development acceptable to communities'. The NPPF notes that decisions should ensurethat developments:

will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but overthe lifetime of the development;are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effectivelandscaping;


are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environmentand landscape setting, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change(such as increased densities);establish or maintain a strong sense of place, using the arrangement of streets, spaces,building types and materials to create attractive, welcoming and distinctive places to live, workand visit;optimise the potential of the site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate amount and mixof development (including green and other public space) and support local facilities andtransport networks; andcreate places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health andwell-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users; and where crime anddisorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesionand resilience.

Policy D1 of the LPSS makes clear that new development will be required to achieve a highquality design that responds to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is set. Thedesign criterion set out in policy G5 of the saved Local Plan are also relevant.

The National Design Guide, 2019, sets out that well-designed places are integrated into theirsurroundings, physically, socially and visually, so that they relate well to the immediate context.Patterns of built form and the architecture prevalent in the area, should help to inform the layout,grain, form, scale, materials, detailing and appearance of new development.

The site falls within the Ockham and Clandon Wooded Rolling Claylands Landscape CharacterArea as defined by the Guildford Landscape Character Assessment (GLCA) and Guidance. Thekey characteristics of this character area include pastoral and arable farmland, large scalegeometric fields, blocks of woodland and plantations, horse paddocks, networks of smallstreams, ponds and ditches, varied building materials and settlements which have a strongsuburban feel in certain areas following historic expansion due to arrival of the railway. Theapplication site is located towards the edge of the defined built up area and settlement of WestHorsley.

Another useful two sources to draw from when looking at the character of the existing area arethe West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan and West Horsley Character Appraisal. The site lies withinthe character area 8 (East Lane North) and forms part of the Neighbourhood Plan designatedVillage Settlement. The Character Appraisal states that the key qualities of this area areprincipally:

‘It’s high quality, single quality, single family 1930’s - 1950’s detached housing stock, set backbehind mature hedges fronting the principal roads. Ockham Road North, East Lane, NightingaleAvenue and Northcote Road largely comprises two storey detached houses, built in the 1930’s &1950’s, largely set back behind mature front hedges and with moderate to large rear gardens.There are a small number of semi-detached properties and a small number of bungalows whichremain, although with extension or redevelopment these are declining in number. Properties arelargely brick built with clay tile roofs. There is a mixed use of render, vertical clay tile or faux‘Tudor’ beams to front elevations.’

The Character Appraisal also gives a description of the surrounding developments includingGreen Lane, The Raleigh School/The Roughs, Nightingale Crescent and Edwin Road/Close.Cul-de-sac estates are the predominant development pattern of the area. The Appraisalhighlights that whilst properties to the northern end of Ockham Road North currently benefit froman open aspect to the rear across Waterloo Farm land, this area is proposed for redevelopment.Therefore, acknowledging that the immediate character in this part of the settlement will changein the future.


Policy WH2 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that 'development proposals in the SettlementArea (covering areas of Character Areas 4, 7, 8 and 9), as shown on the Policies Map, will besupported provided they have full regard to the West Horsley Character Area Report, the LocallyImportant Roadside and Rural Views identified in Figure 13, and the following design principles:

i. where adjoining the boundaries of the built-up area of the village, the emphasis will be on theprovision of housing types and built forms that help maintain an appropriate transitional edgeto the village and maintain local character and countryside views;

ii. buildings should be of good design and use high quality materials. Scales, heights and formof buildings should be sympathetic to the existing built environment;

iii. within the areas to the west of The Street, on Silkmore Lane and Ripley Lane, developmentshall be designed to retain the open feel and significant views across open farmland;

iv. east of The Street, proposals should conform to the existing stronger building line regardingfrontages and building height and form;

v. building plots will have low front boundary structures, landscape buffers, low walls or maturehedging rather than timber close-boarded fencing. Footpaths on frontages should be providedalong key routes within the area to encourage walking;

vi. retain established healthy trees and avoid overly extensive tree surgery unless the treecondition has made it unsafe, in which case replacement should be made with suitable nativespecies;

vii. housing design criteria to reflect the locale, reference being made to the established housingstyles in each specific area with particular reference to arts and crafts features and use ofnatural materials common in the area, as defined in Evidence Base: West Horsley CharacterAppraisal Report (October 2017);

viii. where appropriate, the provision of ‘pocket parks’ and natural green spaces for wildlife shouldbe included;

ix. parking provision should not overly dominate the streetscene and should maintain thecharacter of the area. Garages should be visually subservient to the main dwelling or otherprincipal.

Policy WH15 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that 'all development proposals should bedesigned to minimise the occurrence of light pollution. The Parish Council will expect suchschemes to employ energy-efficient forms of lighting that also reduce light scatter and complywith the current guidelines established for rural areas by the Institute of Lighting Professionals(ILP). Proposals for all development will be expected to demonstrate how it is intended to preventlight pollution. Information on these measures must be submitted with applications, and where adevelopment would potentially impact on light levels in the area, an appropriate lighting schemewill be secured by planning condition.

The proposal would deliver 35 homes on former paddock land which is part of an allocated site,therefore, the development needs to address both the existing development along Green Laneand the potentially forthcoming development within the remainder of the allocated site. As part ofthe proposal, the existing woodland tree boundaries and Oakland Farmhouse, to thenorth/north-west of the site, would be retained.

Layout and arrangement

The proposal would be contained behind the properties on Green Lane and as such the mostvisible element of the scheme would be the proposed access. The access would be 5 metres inwidth and run along the boundary with Oakland Farm. The scheme has utilised the site so thatthe views into the development from the access will not be largely dominated by housing with thewoodland and existing residential development providing screening.


The access when viewed from Green Lane would be read with its surroundings, with a pond tothe right and grassland/woodland to the left, there would not be many opportunities for views ofthe core of the development owing to the circular route and layout of the housing. The viewswould predominantly be of a single access and associated route stretching to the south.Therefore, the surrounding context of the site would limit the prominence of the proposeddevelopment and as such is considered acceptable in this regard.

The density of the development is considered to be appropriate for the locality, particularly whenconsidering its surroundings and also the densities of other surrounding estate developments,such as Northcote Crescent and Nightingale Crescent. The layout of the proposal would result inthe built form being positioned towards the centre of the site, in a linear form running north tosouth. This would respect the development along Green Lane and Ockham Road North.

The overall layout of the scheme would be of cul-de-sac design which responds to the prevailingtypology and development pattern in the area. The road encircles the majority of dwellings and asa result of this form there is a well-sized buffer between the dwelling frontages and thesurrounding landscape. This layout also has the benefit in that the frontages of the dwellings outbeyond the edge of the site and create back to back relationships within the inner circle, this willallow for the dwellings to be open to any future development on the adjoining land parcel to theeast which also forms part of the site allocation.

Design

In terms of the architecture, the proposed dwellings would be relatively traditional in theirappearance having been designed to reflect the surrounding context. The elevational approach toall dwellings is traditional and low-lying with an emphasis on materiality. The design of dwellingshas used decorative detailing to achieve individuality to each dwelling. The scheme hasresponded to the scale of dwellings in Green Lane and to minimise the height of the dwellings,traditional hipped roof dormers have been utilised, these cross the eaves line to further reducescale. The apartment blocks have been designed to appear as 1.5/2 storeys in height, respectingthe nature of neighbouring bungalows to the north-east. No dwelling would exceed 2 storeys inheight. The dwellings have been designed so that the built form as a whole has the appearanceof a single detached large family dwelling but is split to provide two or three smaller units, forexample Plots 1-4 are semi detached units but appear as one larger unit when viewed externally.Further the apartment blocks would contain up to three units and would have the appearance ofone detached family dwelling.

They would integrate into the surroundings in an acceptable manner. In terms of externalmaterials a drawing has been submitted with the proposal which indicates the use of a variety ofmaterials including tile hanging, black weatherboarding, natural timber, light red brick, orangebrick, red clay roofing tiles and brown clay roofing tiles. Whilst the proposed material palette isconsidered acceptable in principle, no samples have been provided and therefore a condition willbe added to require the submission and approval of material details prior to the start of theconstruction.

Highway works

In order to facilitate the development, highway improvement works are required along GreenLane to widen the access road. Whilst these works are located outside of the red line boundaryand would be agreed with the County Highway Authority under the S278 process, they areintrinsically related to the development and as such the impact of these works on the immediatecharacter must also be assessed.


These works consist of widening the first 10 metres of the carriageway, from the junction withOckham Road North, to 5.5 metres in width and the introduction of 2 new passing places and theformalisation of an existing passing place. The majority of the work would affect the northern sideof Green Lane resulting in the removal of some boundary vegetation, whilst this would have animpact on the immediate character of the area, it would not be materially harmful to the characterof the surroundings. There are existing gaps within the boundary vegetation which permit viewsthrough to the open fields beyond and as such the removal of vegetation would likely permitgreater views through but this is not considered significantly harmful and overtime vegetation willlikely grow to screen these gaps. The widening of the junction would again result in the loss ofvegetation but also a tree on the northern side of the junction. The trees to the southern sidewould be mainly unaffected as the changes are not proposed to the southern section of the roadwidening. The loss of the tree and vegetation would marginally reduce the verdant nature of thislocation, however, Green Lane is almost opposite the junction for Whitehill Lane which itself is amore developed and wider road and considering the immediate surroundings and character it isnot found that the highway works would be materially harmful to the character of the area.

Overall

The local and national policies put an emphasis on ensuring developments are well-designed andrespectful to the character of the locality within which they are to be constructed. However, as theNDG states 'well-designed places do not need to copy their surroundings in every way. It isappropriate to introduce elements that reflect how we live today, to include innovation or changesuch as increased densities, and to incorporate new sustainable features or systems.' It is foundthat the proposed scheme would respect the surrounding context and character of itssurroundings, creating a reasonable balance between absorbing characteristics of local built formand features of new development. The proposal is found to be compliant with policies D1 of theLPSS, 2015-2034, G5 of the saved Local Plan, 2003, WH2 and WH15 of the NeighbourhoodPlan, 2016-2033, and the relevant provisions of the NPPF, 2021.

Landscape and visual impact

Paragraph 127 (c) of the NPPF seeks to ensure that developments are 'sympathetic to localcharacter and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting, whilenot preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change (such as increased densities)'.Policy D1(4) of the LPSS required a response and reinforcement of landscape setting andparagraph 4.5.9 explains that 'the relationship of the built environment to the landscape must betaken into account and the transition from urban to rural character will need to be reflected in thedesign of new development with the green approaches to settlements respected'.

The land surrounding the application site is relatively flat and as such, views of the site will belimited to within the site and when travelling on the adjacent roads. The impact on the characterof the area has already been set out above.

It is noted that the site is located approximately 2.8 kilometres from the closest point of theSurrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposed development would notmaterially change the key landscape characteristics or elements and features of the widerenvironment and as set out above would be largely contained behind residential developmentand woodland and from long distance views would be read with the pattern of development withinWest Horsley. The proposal would not result in any harm to important long distance views,particularly those from the AONB.

In conclusion, the proposed development is considered to be consistent with landscape planningobjectives and is acceptable in terms of its effect on landscape and visual amenity.


Impact on neighbouring amenity and amenity of proposal

Paragraph 127f of the NPPF requires 'places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and whichpromote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users andwhere crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life orcommunity cohesion and resilience'. One of the key characteristics in the National Design Guide(NDG) is, Homes and buildings – functional, healthy and sustainable for occupiers and thesurrounds. These principles are taken forward in policy D1 of the LPSS and saved policy G1(3)which requires protection from unneighbourly development.

Neighbour amenity

The proposed development adjoins an existing residential area to the north-west which is locatedoff Green Lane. The dwellings here are mainly bungalows and chalet bungalows.

As amended, the proposed plots one and two and to a lesser extent three would present theirrear elevations towards the rear of Meadowside which is one of the bungalows on Green Lane.The proposed dwellings would be situated approximately 39 metres to the west of Meadowsideand at a slightly oblique angle to its rear elevation. The distance of separation, combined with themodest height of these plots would mean that the proposal would not harm the amenity ofMeadowside in terms of overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing. It is noted that a smallparking area would be provided between the rear gardens of the proposed plots andMeadowside. The car park would serve eight of the proposed dwellings set around it, so would berelatively small in size. Only four parking spaces would be adjacent to the rear boundary ofMeadowside and these also gradually angle away, meaning the distance of separation increases.There would also be a small landscaped buffer between the car parking spaces and Meadowsidewhich help to mitigate any impacts. The proposed parking area would not result in any materialloss of amenity to the residents of Meadowside.

It is acknowledged that the proposed parking area and the development in general would alterthe existing outlook from Meadowside. However, for the reasons set out above, the applicant hassought to minimise the impacts and given the site is allocated in the Local Plan, a change in therelationship between this site and Meadowside is to be expected.

In terms of the impact on the existing Oakland Farm it is noted that a large area of outdooramenity space is still reserved for this property which is proportionate to its size. The proposalwould result in traffic from the proposed development travelling along its new western boundary.Where the road runs adjacent to the western elevation of Oakland Farm, a large landscapebuffer is proposed which would help to offset the impact of vehicles travelling along the access.The level of traffic using the access would also be relatively low and overall, there would be nomaterial loss of amenity to the occupants of this property. It is noted that the side elevation of plotone would face the rear garden of Oakland Farm, where there is a swimming pool andoutbuilding. While plot one would be visible from Oakland Farm's rear garden, the impact wouldbe limited to the very rear potion of what would still be a very large space. With a condition toprevent the addition of any windows in the side elevation of plot one, there would be no materialloss of amenity to the rear garden of Oakland Farm.

To the south-east of the site are two detached dwellings known as Lake Cottage and ShepherdsCottage. Plot 26 would be the closest proposed dwelling to these properties, but it is positionedon the other side of an existing hedgerow and with a separation distance of approximately 17metres to Shepherds Cottage and 30 metres to Lake Cottage. Given the existing landscapingand the separation distances, the proposal would not result in any material harm to the amenityof either of these properties.


Occupier amenity

All of the proposed dwellings include an area of private amenity space and the apartmentsgenerally have either their own or shared garden areas. The areas of amenity space vary in sizeacross the site; however, all of the dwellings include access to an appropriate area of outdooramenity space to meet the passive recreational requirements of the future occupants of thedevelopment.

Policy H1 of the LPSS states that 'all new residential development must conform to the nationallydescribed space standards as set out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment (MHCLG)'.

All of the house types proposed as part of the development comply with the relevant spacestandards in terms of their overall size. The proposal is therefore deemed to be acceptable in thisregard.

Having regard to all of the above it is concluded that the development proposed would not giverise to unacceptable impacts on the adjoining residential properties and would provide a goodlevel of amenity for the future occupants of the development. For these reasons the developmentcomplies with the objectives of policy D1 of the LPSS, G1(3) of the saved Guildford Local Planand the National Design Guide (NDG) and NPPF.

Highway/parking considerations

Paragraph 103 of the NPPF requires significant development should be focused on locationswhich are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuinechoice of transport modes. Paragraph 109 goes on to note that 'development should only beprevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highwaysafety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe'.

Policy ID3 of the LPSS says that new development will be expected to contribute to the deliveryof an integrated, accessible and safe transport system, maximising the use of sustainabletransport modes, and establishes a set of steps for development to take into account in order toachieve this objective.

The application is supported by a Transport Statement (TS) which has been assessed by theCounty Highway Authority (CHA).

Capacity of highway network

The development proposal is predicted to generate circa 17 vehicle movements during theweekday morning and evening peak hours, and around 155 two-way vehicle movements daily.

The TS notes that 'due to the proximity of the Green Lane/Ockham Road North junction to theeast, future residents are less likely to exit/enter the site from Long Reach. Furthermore, theproposals include the introduction of three formal passing places spaced evenly between theproposed site access and the Green Lane/Ockham Road North junction. This combined with theproposed widening of the Green Lane/Ockham Road North junction results in eastboundmovements being preferable. Therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that the majority oftraffic associated with the proposed development will use the Green Lane/Ockham Roadjunction'. The TS predicts that the proposed development could result in an additional 15 two-wayvehicular movements at the Green Lane/Ockham Road junction within the peak hours. Whilst theproposed development could result in an additional 2 two-way vehicle movements at the GreenLane/Long Reach junction.


This combined with the existing vehicular movements results in one vehicle using the GreenLane/Ockham Road junction every 2-3 minutes within the peak hours and one vehicle using theGreen Lane/Long Reach junction every 15 minutes within the peak hours. While the proposal willincrease traffic on the highway network, the TS notes that the improvements along Green Lanewill minimise the potential for delay and queuing on Ockham Road North and therefore, theproposals will not have a material impact on the operation of local transport networks. TheCounty Highway Authority agree with this conclusion and their comments on the application statethat 'it is not considered that the proposed development will result in a significant increase invehicular trips on the surrounding highway network'.

While the proposal will undoubtedly increase traffic movements in the area, this would not be to alevel which constitutes a severe impact. As no objections have been raised by the CountyHighway Authority regarding the impact of this proposal on the capacity of the network, theproposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

Access and highway safety

It is noted that access to the site would be via Green Lane which is a relatively narrow road thatlinks Long Reach to the west and Ockham Road North to the east. The applicant proposes anumber of improvement measures to Green Lane between the site and its junction with OckhamRoad North. These include:

x. widening of Green Lane at its junction with Ockham Road north to 5.5 metres;formalisation of the existing passing place on Green Lane; andprovision of an additional two formal passing places on Green Lane.

The TS notes that the improvements to the Green Lane / Ockham Road North junction will allowtwo vehicles to pass each other at the junction, thereby improving the flow of traffic along GreenLane. While the narrowness of Green Lane is also acknowledged, it is stated that the provision ofthree formal passing places will mitigate any impacts on the flow of traffic. The TS states that'Green Lane between the site access and the junction with Ockham Road North is relativelystraight and flat, providing good forward visibility. Vehicles will be able to wait within one of thethree passing places to give-way to a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction as required. Anydelay would be of a short duration given the short time necessary to navigate the route...A driverexiting the proposed site access will be able to see another vehicle approximately 130 metreseast and vice versa. Within this distance two of the proposed passing places can be accessed,providing two options for the vehicles to pass. Additionally, a driver entering Green Lane fromOckham Road North will be able to see an approaching vehicle west of the eastern passingplace. As such, vehicles can either wait at the junction or within a passing place to pass'. For thereasons set out in the preceding section, it is expected that most traffic will use the Green Lane /Ockham Road North junction. However, if a limited amount of vehicles from the site use theGreen Lane / Long Reach junction, there are still a number of passing places along this routewhich would ensure the adequate flow of traffic. The County Highway Authority raise no objectionto how Green Lane would operate once the development is built.

In terms of visibility splays it is noted that with the changes proposed to the Green Lane /Ockham Road North junction adequate sight lines could be gained. The County HighwayAuthority notes that the 'visibility splays provided for Ockham Road North junction with GreenLane [are] acceptable. The required visibility splays provided for Green Lane junction with LongReach [are] also satisfactory...Swept path analysis shown on Ockham Road North junction withGreen Lane is acceptable'.


The above measures once implemented will mitigate the impact of the development in the areaand therefore no objections are raised regarding the proposed access points, or the impacts ofthe scheme on highway safety.

It should also be noted that Officers have required the applicant to engage with the developer ofthe adjacent site (also within the allocation) to investigate if access points can in time be shared /linked through the developments. On this occasion, the applicant has confirmed that this is not apossibility. While regrettable, the Local Planning Authority has no power to force vehicle linkagesthrough the site and there is also no requirement for these smaller allocations to be masterplanned. While a pedestrian and cycle link between the sites has been secured, it is felt that thisis as much as can be achieved in the current circumstances.

Parking

Based on the Council's adopted standards contained within the Vehicle Parking SPD, a total of60 residential car parking spaces would be required. The proposed development includes a totalof 82 car parking spaces across the site. These include nine visitor / unallocated spaces. Theproposal would provide significantly more parking than is suggested in the SPD, however, giventhe location of the site, no objections are raised to this.

Cycle parking is provided in accordance with the Council's standards and each dwelling wouldinclude an electric vehicle charging point.

In conclusion, as regards highways impacts it is noted that the proposal would not result in anymaterial increase in traffic in the area and no capacity concerns are raised. It is noted that thisconclusion is reached taking into account all approved, committed and likely development in theimmediate area. With the mitigation measures proposed, there would be no adverse impact onhighway safety. As such, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

Pedestrian and cycle accessibility

The TS confirms that footways are not present along Green Lane, however, it is stated that thenature of the road and the low traffic volumes allows Green Lane to act as a shared surface forpedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The County Highway Authority raises no objections to thisarrangement. To the east of the site Ockham Road North benefits from continuous, thoughalternating, footways providing a link south towards Horsley railway station. In addition there area number of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) are accessible within close proximity of the site.These footpaths, bridleways and byways provide off-road routes towards East and West Horsleyvillage centres on-foot and by cycle.

It is also noted that a pedestrian and cycle link has been secured between this site and the largerpart of the allocation. It is hoped that the developer for the adjoining site will be able to facilitatethis access point, and if so, residents from this development will in time be able to accessOckham Road North without using Green Lane.

It is noted that a number of comments have been received from residents stating that the site ispoorly located. However, it is a relatively short walk to the local centre a point which was noted bythe Local Plan Inspector.

Subject to the conditions recommended by the County Highway Authority, the proposal would notresult in a severe impact on the highway network and as such, the proposal is deemed to beacceptable in this regard.


Flooding and drainage considerations

Para 163 of the NPPF requires that development should not increase flood risk elsewhere and atpara. 165 major schemes should incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Policy P4 ofthe LPSS is in accordance with these requirements. The Neighbourhood Plan identifies HorsleyFlooding ‘Hotspots’ in Figure 7 and policy WH13 requires sustainable drainage design features.

The application site does not fall within the area designated as the Horsley Flooding Hotspot,lying to the north of this boundary outside the designation. The submitted Flood Risk Assessmentsets out that there is a negligible risk of flooding from tidal, groundwater or infrastructure failuresources. The primary flooding considerations are therefore from fluvial and surface watersources. There is an existing EA Statutory Main River to the east, of the site and as such a veryminor area of the site, in the north-western corner along the existing access point lies within EAdesignated Flood Zone 2. However, the residential development lies in Flood Zone 1 so is at thelowest risk of flooding from this watercourse. The EA Surface Water Flood Map indicates that thedevelopment is to be constructed on land which is classified as having a low risk of surface waterflooding, interjected within this band of low risk, which stretches across the site, are patches ofmedium risk of surface water flooding.

Flooding and the main watercourse

The development site would include a small portion of land which is designated as Flood Zone 2and as such it needs to be considered whether any further tests are required. The NPPF atparagraph 166 states: “Where planning applications come forward on sites allocated in thedevelopment plan through the sequential test, applicants need not apply the sequential testagain. However, the exception test may need to be reapplied if relevant aspects of the proposalhad not been considered when the test was applied at the plan-making stage, or if more recentinformation about existing or potential flood risk should be taken into account.”

The application site forms part of the wider site allocation for policy A39 and as a result of the siteallocation process in the making of the local plan, the sequential test was applied to the sitethrough the formulation of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) Level 1, therefore, thisdoes not need to be repeated for this application. The exception test, however, comprises twoparts of which the second part can only be fully passed when determining a developmentproposal, therefore, the exception test assessment is set out below.For a proposed development to pass the Exception Test:

it must be demonstrated that development provides wider sustainability benefits to thecommunity that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment, anda site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe forits lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood riskelsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

The development would provide 35 homes, of which all would be on land classified as FloodZone 1, therefore, at the lowest risk of flooding. Through the development of this site, it presentsthe opportunity for improvements to the wider flooding issues by providing attenuation on site andslowing the run off into the river. The development would also provide dwellings which aresustainable, achieving a carbon emissions reduction, and include renewable energy sources, aswell as delivering adaptable and accessible homes. The scheme would provide funding towardsenvironmental improvements within the village. The level of risk to be outweighed is minorconsidering it relates only to the access point, as set out above, and therefore, the benefitsdescribed would strongly outweigh this harm.


The development would be safe for its lifetime as flooding of the dwellings is extremely unlikelyand safe access and egress for pedestrians would be achieved to the south of the site, leadingresidents away from any potential flood water to the north. Further, the submitted Flood RiskAssessment (FRA) demonstrates that the development can be carried out without increasingflood risk elsewhere. The FRA also explains that any flood water around the vehicular accessfrom Green Lane would be minor which should not preclude vehicles, in particular emergencyvehicles, from using the access in times of flood. Therefore, on the basis of the informationpresented and the design of the proposal it is considered that the development would comply withthe exception test.

Drainage

The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) have reviewed the FRA and Phase 1 and Phase 2Geo-environmental Risk Assessment. The proposed surface water drainage system would meetthe requirements of the LLFA and suggested conditions on the detailed drainage design andverification of this have been put forward.

The strategy has been split into 5 catchments, A to E. Outfalls to the existing culvert would befrom catchments A, D and E whilst catchments B and C cascade into catchment D at a restrictedflow rate. The strategy would incorporate attenuation basin, storage tanks with Hydrobrake flowcontrol chambers and permeable paving, the attenuated water will be discharged, at greenfieldrates, into the existing culvert. The on-site attenuation with storage would manage the 1 in 100storm plus 40 % event.

Chapter 10 of the NPPF requires that consideration be given both to risk to the site, and to riskelsewhere caused by the proposed development. Based on our understanding of the site settingand the proposed development, it would be constructed and operated safely and would notincrease flood risk elsewhere. This is supported by the views of statutory consultees. Theproposal would be in accordance with policy P4 of the LPSS, policy WH13 of the NeighbourhoodPlan and the NPPF.

Sustainability and energy

The NPPF emphasises the need to plan proactively for climate change and new developmentsare required to meet the requirements of paragraph 150 through climate change adaption,provision of green infrastructure and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Paragraph 153then states new development should comply with local requirements for decentralised energysupply and take account of landform, layout, building orientation, massing and landscaping tominimise energy consumption.

Policy D2 of the LPSS is the Council’s policy to require new development to take sustainabledesign and construction principles into account, including by adapting to climate change, andreducing carbon emissions. The Council has adopted the Climate Change, Sustainable Design,Construction and Energy SPD in December 2020. This carries full weight in decision making.

Energy efficiency

The Sustainability and Energy Statement submitted with the application states that the homeshave been designed to reduce energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions. This has beenachieved through investing in the building fabric taking a fabric first approach to sustainabledesign in line with the energy hierarchy.


The Statement confirms that the dwellings will exceed the higher standard for carbon dioxideemissions set Part L of the Building Regulations (2013). It is possible exceed BuildingRegulation requirements through demand reduction measures alone, which includes bothpassive design measures and active design measures. Appendix 2 of the statementdemonstrates the carbon emissions reduction from energy efficiency measures, some unitsachieve a 15% reduction from energy efficiency alone and some 3%, the average reductionachieved totalling 8.5%. There is no requirement in policy which states how much carbonemission reduction must be achieved by energy efficiency/fabric first approach and the effortsdemonstrated in the statement are considered appropriate. Appendix 3 identifies the carbonemission reduction once renewable technology is included and all units achieve above 20%reduction with the average being 24.5%. The scheme would be policy compliant in thisregard.

Water efficiency

In terms of water efficiency, the statement sets out that the following devices will beincorporated within the apartments and houses:

water efficient tapswater efficient toiletslow output showersflow restrictors to manage water pressures to achieve optimum levels andwater meters

Waste and resources

Waste minimisation is devolved to a future Construction Strategy and it is appropriate tocondition a Site Waste Management Plan to address this matter.

Materials

BRE Green Guide materials rated A+, A or B will be used. Local materials suppliers will betargeted. This is appropriate and adequate.

Sustainable design

The site is constrained which has made it difficult for the developer to fully addresssustainable design, however, owing to the constraints it is considered appropriate in thissituation. Details regarding energy efficient lighting are provided and the development willincorporate secure cycle parking for every unit and EV charging.

Climate change adaptation

The development would provide water butts in garden which addresses rainfall and droughtelements. Permeable paving and drainage is dealt with and addressed by the drainagestrategy and as such the proposal is found acceptable in this respect.

In all, the proposed development would exceed the requirements of the Council's developmentplan and the proposal would therefore be compliant with policy D2 of the LPSS and the ClimateChange, Sustainable Design, Construction and Energy SPD.


Open space provision

Saved policy R2 states that new large scale residential developments will require newrecreational open space according to the following standards:

1.6ha of formal playing field space per 1,000 people;0.8ha of children's play space per 1,000 people; and0.4ha of amenity space per 1,000 people.

For the proposed development (87.5 people) this would equate to:

1,400 sqm of formal playing field space700 sqm of children's play space350 sqm of amenity space

The proposed development is not of a sufficient size to deliver formal playing field space,however, this will be delivered through the development of the adjoining land parcel as part of thesite allocation. A strip park of 1440 sqm will be provided on the situated along the easternboundary to provide informal amenity space for the occupants, this will include natural play spacebeneath the trees. The location of this amenity space also offers opportunities for future links tobe established to connect into the formal play space to be delivered on the adjoining site.Considering the scale of the development, the constraints of the site and the remainder of thesite allocation land, the open space provision in this instance is found to be adequate andacceptable.

Impact on ecology

Paragraph 180 of the NPPF sets out the principles that should be applied to habitats andbiodiversity. One of the key characteristics in the National Design Guide (NDG) is, Nature –enhanced and optimised to contribute to the quality of a place. Policy ID4 of the LPSS seeks tocontribute to biodiversity. WH14 of the Neighbourhood Plan seeks ensure the protection of localbiodiversity assets and UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitats. In addition, whereverpracticable, proposals should contribute to, increase and enhance the natural environment byproviding additional habitat resources for wildlife and green spaces for the community with abiodiversity net gain. Lastly, policy NE4 of the saved Guildford Local Plan safeguards protectedspecies.

The consideration of the effects of development upon protected species and habitats is animportant consideration and this application has been supported by a full suite of ecological andarboricultural surveys from submission to evaluate the likely impacts of the whole proposeddevelopment.

Bats

The bat survey report has confirmed the presence of active maternity brown long eared batroosts within the development site. These roosts would be subject to loss as a result of thedevelopment, however, this can be mitigated through licensing and submission of a MethodStatement which the development will be required to comply.

The development would have the potential to cause disruption to bats in terms of artificial lightingof their roosting and foraging places and commuting routes. Therefore, a condition will berequired to secure submission of a lighting plan and to prevent the installation of additionalexternal lighting beyond that agreed.


Dormice

The ecological reports note that dormice are absent from the development site and therefore noconcerns are raised in this regard.

Reptiles

The ecological appraisal states at paragraph 0.19 that the site has a low suitability for reptiles asit was predominantly used as grazing land and as a result was well-managed, therefore,providing limited suitability for reptiles due to a lack of cover from predators. The edge habitatshave been cleared and as such offer no suitable habitat for reptiles. There are a number of wood,rubble and brash piles were noted around the site edges that could serve as hibernacula forcommon reptile species. The Surrey Wildlife Trust initially raised concerns regarding inadequateinformation but following the submission of further detail from the applicant it has now beenconfirmed that this is satisfactory. A condition regarding submission of a Reasonable AvoidanceMeasures document is recommended.

Great Crested Newts

The ecology reports identify the presence of waterbodies within close proximity of thedevelopment and suitable terrestrial habitat with the development site. Whilst the closest pondwas ruled out as having likely presence, another close pond was presumed to be dry. GCN areknown to remain local to a breeding bond even if it intermittently dries and so there is still apotential for GCN to be present within the wider landscape and move onto the development site.The Surrey Wildlife Trust have recommended that in the case that the Council wishes to grantplanning permission, the applicant should submit a Reasonable Avoidance Measures documentfor approval in writing prior to the commencement of the development.

Biodiversity

Policy ID4 sets out that: “new development should aim to deliver gains in biodiversity whereappropriate”. However, this policy does not set a specific requirement and the Environment Bill,which will set the legislative background for requiring biodiversity net gain, has not yet come intoeffect. Therefore, it is not possible to require net gain on this proposal, however, the proposalwould achieve gains on site through the enhancement of the landscape and the provision of twospecific biodiversity areas. It would improve the level of biodiversity on the site above the existingsituation which has been managed as semi-improved grassland. A condition will be added tosecure the submission of a detailed biodiversity enhancement plan.

Overall, the development proposals would be in accordance with the Conservation of Habitatsand Species Regulations 2017, S41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC)Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This is in accordance with policies. ID4 of theLPSS, WH14 of the Neighbourhood Plan, NE4 of the saved Guildford Local Plan and theNational Design Guide (NDG) and the NPPF, 2021.

Impact on trees and vegetation

The application has been supported by the submission of a tree survey, arboricultural impactassessment and tree protection strategy which includes a method statement and protection plan.These documents allow for the assessment of the trees on site in terms of their quality andbenefits within the context of the proposed development.


The development site is relatively clear of trees and those that are on site are not protected. Theproposal includes the removal of seventeen small fruit trees from the site. It is also noted that thesite is adjacent to an area of woodland which was planted in the 1960s to early 1970s and thiswould be retained and appropriate measures taken to secure the protection of these trees duringthe construction of the development.

The development has been designed so that the built form is predominantly within the centre ofthe site with the access road around the perimeter, this will allow for a buffer zone to be createdbetween the built form and the trees. Further, it will ensure the protection of trees from futurepressure to prune and provide a verdant feel to the development.

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has assessed the proposal and made the followingcomments, raising no arboricultural objection:

All roads and housing plots are located outside of the root protection areas (RPA) of all treesproposed to be retainedTo facilitate the development proposal, there will be the requirement to remove seventeen,low quality, small fruit trees. These trees were identified in the report as C Category –Unremarkable trees of very limited merit or such impaired condition that they do not qualify inhigher categories. The removal of the fruit trees is thus supported.Overall the scheme has low arboricultural impact and all retained trees within the site andtrees located on adjacent land can be adequately protected by following the details set out inthe AMS on and the TPP.It is noted that the site layout, as per the TPP, is slightly different to the most recent proposedsite layout. No alteration of the protective fencing etc. will be required and therefore there isno requirement to provided an updated AMS and TPP.If the development is approved a suitable arboricultural condition will be required to ensure allworks are in accordance with the submitted AIA, AMS and TPP.

As explained in the character section of this report, highways improvements to Green Lane arealso required to facilitate the proposal. The Arboricultural Officer has assessed the works andnoted that the majority of the works do not affect trees, however, the works would involve theremoval of two mature oak trees which are currently opposite the property known as'Cornerways'. These trees have, historically, been heavily pruned which has subsequentlyaffected their value. An ash tree near the junction is also likely to be removed, however, thisappears to be suffering decline.

Overall, the scheme integrates the retained trees on the site into the development in anacceptable manner. With a condition ensuring that the development is carried out in accordancewith the Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree ProtectionPlan, the proposal is deemed to be acceptable in this regard.

Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The application site is located within the 400 metre to 5 kilometre buffer of the Thames BasinHeaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA). Natural England advise that new residentialdevelopment in proximity of the protected site has the potential to significantly adversely impacton the integrity of the site through increased dog walking and an increase in general recreationaluse. The application proposes a net increase of 35 residential units and as such has thepotential, in combination with other development, to have a significant adverse impact on theprotected site.


The Council has adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance StrategySPD 2017 which provides a framework by which applicants can provide or contribute to SuitableAlternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) within the borough which along with contributions toStrategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) can mitigate the impact of development.

In this instance, the proposal will rely on off-site SANG to mitigate its impact on the SPA. Thereare a number of private SANGs in the area which are either operational or resolved to approveand therefore it is reasonable to assume that the required mitigation can be secured. Securingcapacity at a SANG in the catchment of the development will be enforced through the legalagreement. In addition a Grampian condition will be imposed to ensure that the developmentdoes not commence until the mitigation has been secured and agreed by the Local PlanningAuthority.

On this basis, it is considered that the proposal would be compliant with the objectives of theTBHSPA Avoidance Strategy SPD 2017 and policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009.

An Appropriate Assessment has also been completed by the Local Planning Authority and it hasbeen agreed with Natural England.

Planning contributions and legal tests

The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) 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.

If all other aspects of the application were deemed to be acceptable, then the followingcontributions could be secured by way of a s.106 agreement.

Thames Basin Heaths SPA

The development is required to mitigate its impact on the TBHSPA. As noted above, the s.106agreement will ensure that the applicant secures capacity at a SANG in the catchment of thedevelopment. In addition, the Strategic Access Management and Monitoring (SAMM) contribution(£29,569.23) would be secured through the legal agreement. This would accord with theTBHSPA Avoidance Strategy SPD, 2017.

Without securing these measures through the s.106 agreement, the development would beunacceptable in planning terms and would fail to meet the requirements of the HabitatRegulations. The obligation is necessary, directly related to the development and reasonable andtherefore meets the requirements of Regulation 122.

Affordable housing

The requirement for affordable housing has been set out above. The legal agreement wouldsecure the provision of the number of affordable units, as well as their tenure and mix, so that theproposal is compliant with local and national policies. The obligation is necessary, directly relatedto the development and reasonable and therefore meets the requirements of Regulation 122.


Education

The development is likely to place additional pressure on school places in the area at early years,primary and secondary level. The development should mitigate these impacts. Surrey CountyCouncil as the Education Authority has provided a list of projects which contributions would beallocated to and these are considered to be reasonable and directly related to the development.

For the early years a contribution of £23,557 has been requested. The funding will be usedtowards early years education infrastructure in the local area. The contribution requested wouldbe used to provide additional early years places in the local area the location of which will bedetermined prior to commencement of the development.

In terms of primary school education a contribution of £111,197 has been requested and thiswould be used towards primary school infrastructure in the local area. A contribution of £116,457has been secured for secondary education infrastructure and would be applied to a projectproviding additional secondary places in the surrounding area.

The total education contribution agreed with the applicant is £251,210. As these contributions arerequired to mitigate the impact of the proposal on the local education system, the obligation isnecessary, directly related to the development and reasonable and therefore meets therequirements of Regulation 122.

Health care - secondary care

Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust have requested a contribution of£71,938.65. The Trust has identified the following three areas of healthcare provision which willbe impacted as a consequence of new development:-.non-elective care; elective care and cancercare. The Trust notes that without securing such contributions, it would be unable to support theproposals and would object to the application because of the direct and adverse impact of it onthe delivery of health care in the Trust’s area.

Given the nature and small size of this development it would be unreasonable to conclude thatthe proposal would put such pressure on secondary care in the area that mitigation would berequired. As such, the Local Planning Authority does not believe that this contribution wouldmeet the CIL regulations.

Highways

To help improve highway safety and to mitigate the impacts of the development, the followinghighways contributions have been negotiated contribution of £70,000 required to fund a demandresponsive bus service as there is a limited bus service along East Lane and the train station isapproximately 1 kilometre from the site. This measure is directly related to the development andreasonable and therefore meets the requirements of Regulation 122.

It is noted that the applicant has agreed to provide these contributions. The triggers for paymentwill be secured through the s.106 agreement. These contributions will support works which willmitigate the impact of the proposal and are necessary, directly related to the development andreasonable and therefore meets the requirements of Regulation 122.


Environmental improvements

The Parish Council has requested £15,000 towards providing environmental improvement andvillage enhancement, through the erection of replacement notice boards, signage andtree/hedgerow planting. The applicant has agreed to pay this contribution in order to help deliverenvironmental improvements which will be beneficial to the wider community and enhance thesurrounding environment.

Balancing exercise

It is noted that the harm identified above must be considered and balanced against the benefitsof the proposal.

In assessing the weight to be afforded to harms / benefits, officers have applied a scale whichattributes little, moderate, significant, or substantial weight to each identified harm / benefit.Having attributed such weight, an overall judgement in then required regarding the balance ofharm vs benefit.

In terms of harm, as noted above, the proposed housing mix is not compliant with specificrequirements of the West Horsley Neighbourhood Plan through the under provision of smallerdwellings. As set out in the 'Housing Mix' section of this report, the SHMA is not a documentwhich requires rigid application and the intention is to deliver the mix of housing across the SHMAarea within the lifetime of the plan. It is also noted that this site forms part of a larger allocation,and there is the prospect of delivering some additional smaller units as part of subsequent partsof the wider development. In addition, it is noted that larger schemes already approved in thearea, which have more flexibility in terms of types and size of dwellings, have displayed a broadlySHMA compliant mix with a greater proportion of smaller units. For all of these reasons,moderate weight is afforded to this harm.

No other harm has been identified.

In terms of the benefits of the proposal, these have already been set out above and include thefollowing:

The provision of 35 market and affordable dwellings, which contributes to the housing supply ofthe area. Substantial weight is afforded to this benefit.

The homes are to offer a quality living environment with adaptable and accessible dwellings,delivering well designed homes that enable people to stay in them long term is a key theme ofnational policy. This is afforded moderate weight.

The proposal would also result in the enhancement of the biodiversity value of the site and widerarea through the provision of funding for environmental enhancements within the wider village.The provision of funding is additional to the policy requirements of the scheme and as suchmoderate weight is attached to this benefit.

The development is projected to achieve 25% carbon reduction across the overall site which isbeyond the Council's requirements. The proposals have been designed to ensure thatsustainability measures are prioritised including commitments to apply a fabric first approach toreduce energy consumption, and the inclusion of renewable technology in the form of in-roofsolar panels. In addition, electrical vehicle charging points are provided to each dwelling. Thesustainability and energy reducing features of the proposal are afforded moderate weight.


The proposal would also result in improvements to the surrounding highways network and accessto public transportation. Moderate weight is afforded to this.

Finally, it is noted that a range of contributions which will help to improve infrastructure in thearea including education and highways. While it is acknowledged that these contributions arerequired to mitigate the impacts of the development, nonetheless they will result in public benefitsand should be afforded moderate weight in the assessment.

The benefits of the proposal are considered to outweigh the identified harm. As such, theproposal is deemed to be acceptable and is therefore recommended for approval.

Conclusion

This is an allocated site which now forms part of the settlement area of Horsley. Whilst therewould be an inevitable change in the character and appearance of the land, the principle ofdevelopment here has already been found to be acceptable. The application would provide a netgain of 35 residential units, which would be in accordance with housing delivery commitments inthe LPSS. This includes the provision of 14 affordable housing units, which are of a size and mixwhich is acceptable to the Council's Housing Strategy and Enabling Manager. The proposeddwellings are considered to provide a good level of internal and external amenity for futureresidents, fully compliant with the NDSS. There would be no unacceptable harm to neighbouringresidents. Subject to conditions the scheme would also be acceptable in terms of highway safety,drainage, trees, ecology and sustainable construction. Planning contributions of £365,779.23have been secured to mitigate the impacts of the development on community, education, theenvironment and highways.

While the proposed housing mix is not ideal and generates a conflict with the NeighbourhoodPlan, this harm is considered to be outweighed by other matters. Therefore, planning permissionshould be granted.


Planning Committee

3 November 2021

Planning Appeal Decisions

The following appeal decisions are submitted for the Committee's information and consideration. These decisions are helpful in understanding the manner in which the Planning

Inspectorate views the implementation of local policies with regard to the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015 - 2034 and the National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF) March 2012 and other advice. They should be borne in mind in the determination of applications within the Borough. If Councillors wish to have a copy of a decision letter, they

should contact Sophie Butcher ([email protected])

1. 1 1.

Mr Bryn Young Fair lawns, The Warren, East Horsley, KT24 5RH 21/P/00309 –The application sought planning permission for a loft conversion to provide an additional bedroom/en-suite and study space incorporating three pitched roof zinc dormers to rear and one central skylight. It is proposed that the existing pitched roof structure be re-roofed using a warm roof construction & natural slate finish, replacing the existing chunky grey concrete tiles without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 20/P/02029, dated 22 January 2021. Delegated Decision: To Refuse Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and its effect on openness; and

whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site is a detached house in the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework1 explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The house is set back from the road and set in a substantial plot of land with generous front and rear gardens. It has previously been extended and the Council calculate that past extensions have increased the floorspace by just over 50% and the recent approval would increase the total floorspace to just over 80% of the original dwelling.

The proposal seeks approval for alternative plans to that previously approved and in particular, the difference would involve increasing the height of the entire roof by 600mm. The approved scheme would include the replacement of the roof and the insertion of dormers.

The Council has noted that this variation would not increase the floorspace above that already approved but it would increase the mass, bulk and volume of the house.

I agree that the volume of the house would be increased by the approved scheme and raising the roof would increase it further. Incremental increases that amounted to a disproportionate increase would clearly

*ALLOWED


mailto:[email protected]

conflict with the Framework and would conflict with a key objective of Green Belt policy to maintain openness.

In effect, the resulting house would differ little in appearance from what has been approved and an extra 600mm added to the height of the roof. The impact of this is lessened by the location of the house, set back from the road and apart from its nearest neighbours.

I do not therefore consider that the proposal, with the additional 600mm above that previously approved would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the original dwelling. I do not consider that it would harm the openness of the Green Belt and I do not therefore consider that the proposal would conflict with the Framework or Local Plan Policy P2.

I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no harm would arise to its openness. The proposal would be consistent with the Framework and Policy P2 and therefore the appeal succeeds.

2. 2.

J Eagle 28 Foxglove Gardens, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7ES 21/P/00222 – The development proposed is single storey rear extension and dormer for loft conversion. Delegated Decision: To Refuse Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are the effect of the rear dormer on the character and appearance of the area; and

The effect of the single storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30 Foxglove Gardens.

The appeal site is the end house in a terrace of four with access to a garage court to the west with the garages located to the south. The dormer would run from the existing ridge and across most of the width of the house.

The dormer would be of a scale and design that would be out of keeping with the original design of the house and although it would be to the rear, it would be prominent and visually intrusive at the end of this terrace, which is otherwise free from rear dormers.

On this issue therefore I find that the rear dormer would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and conflict with policies D1 and H8, the SPD and the Framework as referred to above. This element is therefore unacceptable.

The extension would be a relatively modest one and its design which would splay the end closest to the attached neighbour No 30, would reduce its impact on the occupiers of No 30. The plans indicate that it would not exceed the 45 degree guide and I do not consider that it would be of a scale that would be harmful to the occupiers of No 30 due to loss of light. Also, I do not consider that its position, depth or height would be such as to appear unduly intrusive, dominant or overbearing.

I have considered all other matters raised but, on this issue, I find that no conflict with policy G1(3) or the SPD would arise and the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30 would not be harmed.

I have found the single storey extension would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30 Foxglove Gardens, the proposal would not conflict with the Council’s policy or SPD and therefore is acceptable. However, the dormer would have a harmful effect on the character and

*SINGLE EXTENSION ALLOWED/ REAR DORMER DISMISSED


appearance of the area and conflict with the Council policies, SPD and the Framework. I consider that these parts of the proposal are severable, both being physically and functionally independent. I therefore propose to issue a split decision.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal in relation to the single storey extension is allowed but the rear dormer is dismissed.

3. 3.

Damian Aziz (Concept Developments Ltd) Land off Field Way, Send, Woking, GU23 6HJ 20/P/01216 – The development proposed is ‘Residential development comprising 9 new dwellings’. Planning Committee:7 October 2020 Decision: Refused Officer Recommendation: To Approve Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are

Whether the proposal would provide for a satisfactory housing mix;

Whether the proposal would provide for satisfactory place making with particular regard to accessibility and connection to the existing street pattern;

The effect upon local ecology and biodiversity;

Whether there is sufficient local infrastructure to support the proposed development, with particular regard to General Practice (GP) surgery places, school places and broadband; and

The effect of the proposal upon the integrity of the TBHSPA.

The Council accepts in its appeal statement that the lack of 1 bedroom units on the site is acceptable in this instance but maintains its objection on the basis that the proportion of larger units proposed does not comply with the SHMA or Policy H1. The SHMA makes clear that a prescriptive approach should not be applied and that specific policies relating to the proportion of homes of different sizes which are then applied to specific sites are unnecessary.

The locality of the appeal site is generally characterised by two storey detached and semi-detached family sized dwellings. The proposed housing mix is weighted towards family sized dwellings in keeping with the locality, whilst also including two smaller two bedroom dwellings, providing some variation in the size of housing proposed. Whilst five of the nine proposed dwellings would have four bedrooms, there is still a need for such dwellings and the suburban characteristics of the area would be generally suitable for the provision of such dwellings.

Whilst weighted towards larger dwelling sizes, the proposed mix of housing would all contribute to the Borough’s housing needs and would be appropriate to the characteristics and location of the site. The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy H1(1) of the Local Plan.

The proposed access to the site would be taken from the end of Field Way. It is not unusual for new developments to be accessible from a private road and the matter of access rights, as applicable, would need to be negotiated by the developer. There is no indication to suggest that the use of Field Way for access to and from the site would not be possible. In principle, Field Way would provide a satisfactory vehicular access for a development of nine dwellings. Pedestrian access would also be possible to the main

*ALLOWED


site entrance via the public footpath that leads onto Clandon Road. The Council confirms that it has no objection to the creation of a cul-de-sac. Both access along Field Way and pedestrian access along the footpath would provide for appropriate connections to the existing street pattern.

In these and all other respects the proposal would amount to good place making and there would be no conflict with the design and place making requirements of Policy D1 of the Local Plan or Policies Send 1 – Design and Send 2 – Housing Development of the SNDP.

Further survey work (PJC Consultancy) has been carried out by the appellant as part of the planning application. There is no clear indication that the proposed development would result in any significant impacts on existing biodiversity at the site, including for foraging or roosting bats.

The appellant’s ecological report includes other mitigation and enhancement measures for the development (including new suitable foraging and nesting habitat) and these along with a final Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (‘LEMP’) can also be secured by a planning condition. These measures appear to be capable of ensuring that a net biodiversity gain could be achieved at the site of lasting value, recognising that relatively small features can often achieve important benefits for wildlife. The appellant’s proposals in this respect include new planting, bee bricks, log-piles, bird boxes and bat boxes.

The proposed development would satisfactorily accord with the biodiversity aims of Policy ID4 of the Local Plan and Policy Send 4 – Green and Blue Infrastructure of the SNDP.

Although the cumulative impact of smaller developments such as this could put additional pressure on local infrastructure and services, there is no detailed evidence and relevant policy basis for requiring contributions in this instance over than those already proposed in the applicant’s S106 undertaking.

There is no conflict with Policy ID1 of the Local Plan regarding the availability and provision of infrastructure to support the proposed development.

I am satisfied that the proposed development, in combination with other projects and plans, would not result in the likelihood of any adverse effects upon the integrity of the TBHSPA. The proposal would therefore satisfactorily accord with the habitats and species protection criteria set out in saved Policies NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009, NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 and the Habitats Regulations 2017.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or cumulatively, that outweigh this finding. I conclude, therefore, that the appeal should be allowed.

COSTS DECISION

Damian Aziz (Concept Developments Ltd) for a full award of costs against Guildford Borough Council

The Council recognises that the SHMA allows for flexibility in determining housing mix. However, the Council does not go onto to make any meaningful assessment against the second part of Policy H1(1) in respect of the site size, characteristics and location, including the provision of any detailed evidence in respect of the appellant’s case that the proposed housing mix takes account of the mix of two-storey detached and semi-detached family dwellings predominantly of three or more bedrooms in the area.


Had the Council taken into account the context and location of the appeal site as required by policy, it might have come to a different conclusion on this issue. This lack of consideration and supporting evidence to address the second part of Policy H1(1) amounts to unreasonable behaviour by the Council. This has led to unnecessary expense by the appellant in contesting this objection.

The Council’s response to the costs application refers to matters of design, appearance and layout as being matters of legitimate panning judgement where well informed and well qualified persons can reason different conclusions. This may well be the case. However, in this case no evidence or explanation has been provided that the proposal is in any way deficient in terms of design, appearance and layout.

There is no reasonable justification that the proposal is in conflict with the development plan in respect of a connection to the existing street pattern or satisfactory place making.

I therefore find that the Council has not been able to demonstrate that it has a reasonable basis for its stance on these matters. Consequently, for the above reasons costs should be awarded against the Council due to its unreasonable behaviour in respect of the whole of the first reason for refusal which has resulted in the appellant incurring unnecessary expense in contesting these matters through the appeal.

The Council’s primary concern in this respect relates to site clearance works carried out prior to the submission of the planning application. The appellant’s supporting ecological assessments submitted with the application was prepared following the clearance. The site clearance works would have been subject to normal wildlife protection regulations if and where relevant. There is no substantive evidence that significant adverse effects occurred in this regard.

Whilst, having carefully considered the evidence, I have found there to be no significant conflict with development plan policies in this regard, on balance I do not consider that the Council has acted unreasonably with regard to this reason for refusal.

The Council’s concerns in regard to lack of infrastructure appear to have arisen from assertions rather than from any evidence regarding the need for facilities or pressure upon existing infrastructure. No evidence, for example, has been provided by the local education authority regarding existing school provision or the potential implications for such provision from the proposed development.

Similarly, no detailed supporting evidence has been supplied to support and justify the Council’s assertion on medical provision. Whilst there may be a strength of feeling on such matters, if these are to be put forward as a formal objection to a planning application, then supporting documented evidence is clearly required.

Given the lack of supporting evidence to justify the Council’s objection in this regard, I consider that the Council has behaved unreasonably in relation to this reason for refusal. This has resulted in the appellant incurring unnecessary expense in contesting this part of the refusal.

The Council’s fourth reason for refusal refers to the lack of a planning obligation with the planning application to secure contributions towards a footpath and cycle track. As there was no such obligation before the Council when it determined the application and the appellant does not

PART ALLOWED


dispute the need for such contributions, I find that the Council has not behaved unreasonably in this respect.

This reason for refusal relates to the failure of the proposal to prevent any adverse effects upon the integrity of the TBHSPA. There was no planning obligation to secure any mitigation before the Council when it determined the application. The applicant does not dispute the need for mitigation and has provided a planning obligation in this regard as part of its appeal submissions. In these circumstances, I do not consider the Council to have behaved unreasonably in this regard.

I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in the PPG, has been demonstrated with regard to the Council’s first and third reasons for refusal and that a partial award of costs is therefore justified.

4.

Mr Yiu Wan 13 Epsom Road, Guildford GU1 3JT 20/P/01877 – The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey extension and three storey addition to the existing building to form a one-bedroom flat and an additional bedsit with reconfiguration of existing two-bedroom flat to form a one-bedroom flat, following the demolition of the existing rear single storey extension. The existing ground floor commercial use is to be reduced in size and changed from A3 to A1/A2 use. Delegated Decision: To Refuse Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are; whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Waterden Road Conservation Area (WRCA),

The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of 15 Epsom Road (No 15), with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook, and

Whether the proposal would affect the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBHSPA).

The appeal site is within a parade of retail units on the edge of Guildford town centre. The two-storey row is arranged around the junction where Epsom Road meets London Road. The parade is of a traditional design, located on a prominent corner site, and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the WRCA.

The two-storey element of the scheme would be of a sizeable depth and height resulting in a sizeable addition to the building. This would be disproportionate to its existing simple form of the host building. Furthermore, the second-floor roof element would add significant further mass to the existing roof with a dominant and disproportionate projecting gable roof form. The aggregated mass of both components would be substantial when taken in combination. This would be at odds with the generally discrete form of existing rear additions and would especially dominate the roof form of the terraced row. Although the proposal would include matching materials and a tiled roof, these design merits would not negate the harm that would be caused by the proposed anomalous addition within this context.

Consequently, the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. Accordingly, the proposal would not satisfy saved policy H4, HE7 and G5 of the LP1 and policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2015-2034

DISMISSED


(2019)(LP2). These policies seek, inter alia, for development to be in scale and proportion with the surrounding area and to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. These policies are in conformity with the Framework which seeks development to be sympathetic to local character and history.

The rear elevation of No 15 includes windows that serve residential accommodation. The proposed rear extension would place a large and bulky addition within close proximity of these rear windows. This rear projection would detrimentally reduce the field of vision of occupiers of the flat and create a dominating sense of enclosure for its occupiers. This would have a substantial and demonstrable effect on both the occupier’s outlook and access to daylight.

There is some dispute between parties as to whether the second-floor window serves a separate flat or acts as a light well to serve the first floor flat. In either event, the harm found to the living conditions would not be materially reduced whether the second-floor window serves a habitable room or not. This is because of the overall scale and proximity of the proposal and its primary and overt impact on first floor windows.

As such, the proposal would result in significant harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No 15 with respect to outlook and daylight. Consequently, the proposed development would not accord with saved policies H4 and G1(3) of the LP1 which seek development to have no unacceptable effect on the amenities of occupiers of buildings in terms of daylight. These are generally consistent with the Framework which seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and living conditions. It would therefore conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.

5.

Mr Gurpreet Singh Ghataore 21 Oxenden Road, Tongham, GU10 1AR 20/P/02126 – The development proposed is a rear garden granny annexe, demolition of existing sheds. Planning Committee: 3 March 2021 Decision: Refused Officer Recommendation: To Approve Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are whether the annexe would be ancillary and provide appropriate living conditions for the occupiers, and its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The application is clear that the proposal is for a “granny annexe” and it was submitted to the Council as a householder development. The floor plans show the accommodation as a bedroom, bathroom and living room but no kitchen. The appellant explains that the accommodation is for family members who currently reside in the main dwelling and would remain dependant on it for cooking and other domestic facilities.

Whilst the building would be detached, contrary to the Council’s position, I do not find it would be remote. The building would be a relatively short distance

*ALLOWED


across the garden along an existing pathway and doors and windows on each building would directly face towards each other.

I accept, given the position of the building with the access lane to the rear and parking to the side, the annexe maybe accessed separately. However, access to the main dwelling from the parking area is through the garden past the annexe. In my view, whilst there is no physical connection, there is a visual and functional relationship between the two buildings. Additionally, as promoted and accepted by the appellant a condition could be imposed restricting the occupation of the building. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal is for ancillary accommodation. In coming to my view, I have had regard to the case law referred to by the appellant.

The Council in their reasons for refusal also indicate that the proposal would provide a poor level of amenity for the occupiers, although no specific concerns are identified, nor have I been directed to any standards or policies relating to ancillary accommodation. The building is of a reasonable size, albeit subservient to the main dwelling, and each room is served by windows. Additionally, as ancillary accommodation the occupiers would share the facilities of the main dwelling which includes the garden which they would have direct access to.

The proposal would provide annexe accommodation of an acceptable form. As such, I find no conflict with Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 saved policy G1(3), which seeks to protect the amenities enjoyed by occupiers of buildings, or place shaping policy D1 of Guildford Borough Local Plan Strategy and Sites.

Many of the properties along Oxenden Road have outbuildings in their gardens; there are numerous garages and other structures with low profile roofs adjacent to the access lane. The proposed annexe building is a simple design with a flat roof and would be constructed in bricks to match the main dwelling.

To accommodate the annexe a row of existing sheds which abut the rear boundary would be removed. Whilst the annexe would cover a greater area and be slightly taller it would be off set from the boundary. Thereby, in my opinion the visual relationship with the access lane would be similar. The building would not be visible from Oxenden Road, and the separation distance and intervening vegetation restrict views from Elm Lane.

In conclusion, I find that the building would not be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the area, and accordingly would not conflict with saved policies H8 and G5 Guildford Borough Local Plan Adopted January 2003 which seek to ensure that residential extensions have no unacceptable effect on character and respect the surrounding environment.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted.

6.

Mr Toby Shea Christmas House, Chinthurst Lane, Shalford, Guildford, Surrey GU4 8JS 20/P/00785 - The development proposed is erection of 5no. new dwellings. Delegated Decision: To Refuse Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are (a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, (b) the impact on the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and (c) the adequacy of the size of bedroom 4 to all houses.

DISMISSED


Christmas House forms part of a row of detached dwellings fronting Chinthurst Lane that vary in size and design. There is not a strong building line and the dwellings are sited within curtilages that are generally large and of differing shape and size resulting in a spacious, verdant and informal character. This character extends to a scattering of dwellings set away from Chinthurst Lane, such as Rusham End to the north of the appeal site.

The appeal site is set within the spacious, informally laid out area but the proposed houses would present as a tightly knit, regimented enclave. The flanks of the houses would appear close to each other or to the site boundaries and there would be extensive hard surfaced areas for parking and turning vehicles.

The proposal would not readily assimilate into the spacious residential character surrounding the site. Whilst the size of the site has increased since the previous appeal, so have the number of dwellings. The proposal has not overcome the issue of the clustering of dwellings contrasting with the significant separation distances predominant in the area identified by the Inspector on the previous appeal.

The proposal would thereby conflict with Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (adopted 2019) (LPSS) which requires all new development to achieve high quality design that responds to the distinctive local character (including landscape character) of the area in which it is set. In relation to the Framework, current Government policies recognise the need for more homes and to make effective use of land. But the proposal is not compatible with Chapter 12 on achieving well designed places and particularly Paragraph 130 which states that developments should “add to the overall quality of the area” and be “sympathetic to the local character including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting”.

The proposal would adversely affect the openness and character of the appeal site and its immediate surroundings, as pointed out on the first main issue. As this area is within the AGLV, it would also affect its character in this respect, and the localised impact would be greater still if the conifer screening were to be removed. However, this is a less sensitive part of the AGLV, and having regard to all relevant factors my findings are that the proposal would not materially harm the wider distinctive open character of the AGLV to the east of the site. It would not be an unduly dominant feature in the landscape. There would therefore only be limited conflict with Policy P1 in relation to the proposal’s impact on the AGLV in the vicinity of the appeal site.

Policy H1 of the LPSS states “All new residential development must conform to the nationally described space standards as set out by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)” The Council confirm that the floor area of the proposed dwellings at 189 sqm each (excluding the integral garage), would exceed the 4 bed, 8 person floor area requirement for a two-storey dwelling of 124 sqm and that the bedroom widths would be satisfactory. Whilst bedroom 4 to all houses is depicted as a double bedroom on the submitted plans with a floor area of 8.55 sqm, below the 11.5 sqm required for a double bedroom, these bedrooms would be satisfactory for a single bed. Given the ample size of the dwellings proposed, there would not be conflict with Policy H1. It would be a matter for occupiers of each of the dwellings to decide what furniture to place in each of these bedrooms.

I acknowledge the appellant’s claims to have sought to work with the Council on development of the site, comments that members of the


Planning Committee would prefer to see a higher number of smaller houses on the site and reference to other infill development, but the proposal would have a substantial adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and a more limited impact on the AGLV. This harm would significantly outweigh the benefit arising from the provision of 5 additional dwellings that would contribute towards housing need in Guildford.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

7. Mr L Grimshaw Barnsthorns Woods, Old Lane, Cobham KT11 1NN 20/P/00019 - The development proposed is described as, “Temporary Storage of 2 no. 12ft x 7ft x 7ft containers for 3 years”. Delegated Decision: To Refuse Summary of Inspector’s Conclusions:

The main issues are whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy;

the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and

if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate. There are however a limited number of exceptions to this, as set out in paragraph 149 of the Framework. In this respect, the parties have focussed on a) buildings for agriculture and forestry. This principle is reflected in Policy P2 of the Guildford borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015 – 2034 (adopted 2019) (Local Plan) which references the list of exceptions identified by the Framework.

The appellant has stated that the proposal would be for forestry use. Specifically, reference has been made to the storage of plant and machinery required for the maintenance of the woods. However, the woodlands are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, and in this context very limited information has been provided to demonstrate the type or extent of forestry operations that would be supported by the proposed storage containers. Accordingly, based on the evidence before me I consider that the exception at paragraph 149 a) does not apply.

Thus, based on the evidence before me, I consider that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and Policy P2 of the Local Plan. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The proposed storage containers would be located within an area of existing woodland where they would be unlikely to be visible from public vantage points. Nevertheless, even though they would be modestly-sized and temporary in their use, they would reduce the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms. As such, whilst the impact to openness would be limited and localised, harm would result to the Green Belt. This would be in addition to the harm I have identified in regard to the first main issue.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in the loss of its openness. These matters carry substantial weight. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case do

DISMISSED


not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the Green Belt aims of Policy P2 of the Local Plan, or the Framework, and consequently would be unacceptable.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.

8.

Mrs K Coetzee Highlands Farm, Chalk Lane, East Horsley, Leatherhead KT24 6TH 20/P/01283 - The development proposed is described as, “Replaced dwelling following demolition of existing dwelling”. Delegated Decision: To Refuse

The main issues are whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy;

the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and

if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appellant has referred to the scale of neighbouring properties and the proposal’s relationship to those properties, the size of the plot and the size of the plots of neighbouring properties, that the proposed new dwelling would be set-back further from the road than the existing building, and the rationale for the design of the proposal. I acknowledge that the proposal would have a similar footprint to the existing dwelling (and would be lesser in width and length).

However, elements of the proposed building would be taller than at present, albeit to a limited extent. The proposal would also appear bulkier by virtue of the increase in internal floorspace proposed accommodated at first floor level. By virtue of the design and location of the proposal, whilst overall it would be similar to the existing building, it would nevertheless in certain respects be of greater dimensions.

Moreover the assessment of the proposal against the building to be replaced for the purposes of the Framework and Local Plan policy P2 is principally a question of actual physical size, rather than perceived size. In this regard, the Council have stated that the proposal would result in a substantial volumetric increase of approximately 51%, over-and-above that of the existing dwelling. This figure has not been disputed by the appellant.

Given my reasoning above, notwithstanding the approach taken to the design of the scheme, its location within its plot and its relationship to neighbouring properties, the proposal would be materially larger than the existing dwelling. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and Policy P2 of the Local Plan. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in the loss of its openness. These matters carry substantial weight. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very

DISMISSED


special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the Green Belt aims of Policy P2 of the Local Plan, or the Framework, and consequently would be unacceptable.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.

9.

Mrs Elizabeth Jackson High Barn Bungalow, High Barn Road, Effingham KT24 5PS 20/P/01226 - The development proposed is erection of stable block with integral haybarn and tractor store following demolition of existing stable block, haybarn and storage to the rear and its associated hard surfaces. Delegated Decision: To Refuse

The main issues are whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the settings of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Area of Great Landscape Value; and

If the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The proposed replacement stable block would be a large structure, which would be placed in a prominent position, adjacent to the road. As such, its bulk and massing would reduce the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms. This impact would not be adequately offset by the new building line that would be created and the removal of the existing L-shaped driveway surface. Furthermore, due to its more prominent position and larger size, the new stable block would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing stables. Although the impact to openness would be limited and localised, harm would result to the Green Belt.

With the above in mind, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and Policy P2 of the Local Plan, and Policy ENP-G1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, to which the appeal scheme would be contrary. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposed development would also, for the reasons I have given, reduce both the spatial and visual aspects of the Green Belt’s openness.

I find that the proposal would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy D1 of the Local Plan, which provides that, amongst other things, all new developments will be required to achieve high quality design that responds to the distinctive local character (including landscape character) of the area in which it is set, and with Policy ENP-G2 of the Neighbourhood Plan which provides that, amongst other things, all development proposals must maintain the character of the built environment by ensuring that the scale and height of new buildings are proportionate to their surroundings. It would also conflict with paragraph 130 of the Framework which provides

DISMISSED


that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a reduction in its openness. Further, the appeal scheme would conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt for the reasons I have given. These matters carry substantial weight. Additionally, the proposal would give rise to harm to the character and appearance of the area. The harms would lead to conflict with the development plan in the terms I have set out. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

Having considered the development plan as a whole, the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal should be dismissed.

10. Mr Anthony Stewart Appin Lodge, Long Hill, The Sands, Farnham GU10 1NQ 20/P/00483 - The development proposed is erection of a detached outbuilding following demolition of the existing building. Delegated Decision: To Refuse

The main issues are whether the appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework;

The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and

If found to be inappropriate development, whether the harm, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Located within the Green Belt, the appeal site comprises a residential property and several outbuildings set within spacious grounds. The Framework sets out that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the outbuilding constitutes a replacement building, as it has been constructed in a position that substantially overlaps that of the original building. The submitted information however confirms that the replacement building is materially larger than the original structure, having regard to its height, width, floor area and mass.

Having regard to the available evidence, I find that the appeal building is materially larger than the one it has replaced,and constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It therefore conflicts with paragraph 149 of the Framework and Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites (adopted 25 April 2019), which confirms that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will not be permitted unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated.

The replacement outbuilding is materially larger than theformer structure. It is therefore a larger built form in spatial terms. Although it is partially screened by existing boundary fencing and vegetation, the additional height of the outbuilding increases its visibility from the track running to the south-east of the site. Consequently, the development results in a moderate loss of openness, both in spatial and visual terms, thus adding to

DISMISSED


the harm by reason of inappropriateness, which is contrary to the Framework.

The appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and reduces openness. Substantial weight is ascribed to the inappropriate nature of the development, but also to the harm caused to openness. The development therefore conflicts with national and local planning policies. Against that, I can only attach very limited weight to the presented fallback position, due to the lack of evidence in that regard and absence of mechanism restricting the use of PD rights.

Overall, the harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations advanced in support, whether taken individually or cumulatively. Consequently, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.

There are no considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined, other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons detailed above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.

11.

Mrs E Lakin Poultry Farm, Lark Rise, East Horsley, Surrey KT24 6TN 21/W/00014 - The development proposed is a change of use from agricultural buildings to dwellinghouse (Class C3) comprising one dwelling. Delegated Decision: To Refuse

The main issue is whether or not the proposed development would be permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).

Class Q of the GDPO permits development consisting of a change of use of a building and any land within its curtilage from use as an agricultural building to a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouses) of the Use Classes Order1. It also permits any building operations reasonably necessary to convert the building.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides further clarification at Paragraph 1052, including that it is not the intention of the permitted development right to allow rebuilding work which would go beyond what is reasonably necessary for the conversion of the building to residential use. Thus, it is only where the existing building is already suitable for conversion to residential use that the building would be considered to have the permitted development right.

The structural appraisal submitted by the appellant concludes that the existing building is suitable for purpose, but that additional works would be required to the foundations and existing slab if it is to become a habitable building. The recommendation is for underpinning where the footings do not exceed 450mm in depth. Appendix A of the appraisal provides the specification for the underpinning, which would extend across all of the building where the habitable accommodation would be located. I have no reason to consider that the recommendation of the structural appraisal is not accurate.

A common sense conclusion on reading the appraisal must be that the building’s foundations are not currently strong enough to enable the

DISMISSED


building to be used as a dwelling. Given the nature and scale of the underpinning required to enable it to be used as a dwelling, the existing building would not already be suitable for conversion. Consequently, the building would not be considered to have the permitted development right provided by Class Q.

Furthermore, given the nature and scale of the underpinning and that the structural appraisal confirms the building to be currently suitable for purpose, the works would, as a matter of fact and degree, go beyond the ‘maintenance, improvement or other alteration’ of the building. Accordingly, they would not comprise internal alterations which would be exempted from the definition of ‘development’ under S.55(2)(a) of the Act3.

Having regard to the above, the proposed works would go beyond what might sensibly or reasonably be described as a conversion. Accordingly, they cannot be considered to fall within the terms of Paragraph Q.1.(i) and therefore the proposal does not benefit from deemed permission under Class Q.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

12.

Guildford Borough Council for a partial award of costs against Mr and Mrs Boag Land at Heath Cottage, Cuttmill Road, Shackleford, Godalming GU8 6BJ The hearing was in connection with an appeal against an enforcement notice alleging the erection of three unauthorised extensions.

From submitted emails it is clear that the appellants, through their agent, made attempts to communicate and co-operate with the Council during the determination of the application and there was an exchange of correspondence. The Council wanted medical and expert evidence to justify the scale and extent of the extensions. The Council was reasonable in this request, in light of the restrictions on new development in the Green Belt where considerations amounting to very special circumstances need to exist, and as I have myself found in my decision.

A response from the Principal Planning Officer stated that the Council had all the information it needed to make their assessment [of the application]. It is not unreasonable that this response led the appellants to believe nothing further needed to be submitted for their application.

It is not unreasonable for any party to seek to resolve a reason for refusal through the appeal process and to submit additional information to do so. The appellants submitted some additional medical information at the exchange of Statements and later a PCN Assessment at Final Comments stage. In terms of the documents themselves, I find the appellants did not act unreasonably in submitting them to support their case.

However, the Procedural Guide makes clear that all parties should follow good practice and behave reasonably, and meet the statutory timetables to ensure that no-one is disadvantaged and the appeal can be processed efficiently. Keeping to the timetables is fundamental and everyone is expected to comply with them.

The appellants’ PCN Assessment contained detailed and new information about the son’s condition, which clarified some matters the Council had been unaware of until that stage. Whilst the appellants say they commissioned the PCN Assessment in advance, they did not give any indication to the Council that such a report was being commissioned or

COSTS REFUSED


would be forthcoming. This supply of substantial new information late in the appeal stage also amounts to unreasonable behaviour.

If the appellants had submitted the medical documents and PCN Assessment earlier in the appeal timetable, or indeed during the determination of the planning application, I consider it likely that the Council would have still sought professional advice to enable it to respond. Whether any costs could have been saved by the earlier submission of evidence cannot be gleaned with any level of clarity on the information before me.

The use of a Barrister was entirely the choice of the Council and a choice unlikely to have been influenced by the appellants’ conduct. Having made that choice, it was a cost incurred regardless of the late submission of evidence. Moreover, the costs application could easily have been made without the assistance of a Barrister.

Whilst I find the appellants have acted unreasonably by submitting substantial new evidence late in the appeal stage, albeit within overall appeal deadlines, I am not satisfied that this caused the Council to incur unnecessary or wasted expense.

I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG and alleged by the Council, has not been demonstrated. An award for costs is therefore not justified.
