19/P/01486 – Kailyaird House, Vicarage Lane, Send, Woking 1

Not to scale

App No: 19/P/01486 8 Wk Deadline: 09/12/2019Appn Type: Full ApplicationCase Officer: Sakina KhanbhaiParish: Send Ward: SendAgent : Ms J McSweeney

Carter Jonas One Chapel PlaceLondonW1G 0BG

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Grant

C/O Agent

Location: Kailyaird House, Vicarage Lane, Send, GU23 7JNProposal: Erection of 6-bed detached dwellinghouse with basement garaging and

attached car port with residential accommodation above

Executive Summary

Reason for referral

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

Key information

Erection of 6-bed detached dwellinghouse with basement garaging and attached car port withresidential accommodation above.

The proposed dwelling incorporates accommodation across three floors (basement, ground andfirst floor).

There are 6 parking spaces to be provided within the basement and 3 further spaces provided inan integral car port to the side of the dwelling.

The proposal also incorporates annex accommodation (incorporating a bedroom, bathroom andkitchen / lounge) above the integral car port.

Dimensions:Height: 9.6m (max. ridge); 12.6m inc. basementDepth: 27.3mWidth: 31.3m

Summary of considerations and constraints

The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there are no very specialcircumstances which would outweigh the inherent harm. The proposal, due to its scale height andbulk, would also have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and on the contextand character of the area. These adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh thebenefit of one new dwelling.

The mitigation against the impact of the development on the integrity of the Thames BasinHeaths Special Protection Area has not been secured and this also weighs heavily against theproposed development.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies P1 and P5 of the Guildford Borough Local Planand the NPPF 2018.

Therefore the proposal does not represent development for which there is a presumption infavour and accordingly the application is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse - for the following reason(s) :-

1. The proposed development is located in the Green Belt outside of any identifiedvillage and represents inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful tothe Green Belt. In addition, the proposed development by virtue of its scale andlocation, will have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt. No veryspecial circumstances have been identified by the applicant that clearly outweigh thesubstantial harm caused. The development therefore fails to accord with Policy P2 ofthe Guildford Borough Council Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2015 - 2034 andChapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths SpecialProtection Area (TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that therewill be no likely significant effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absenceof an appropriate assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, eitheralone or in combination with other development, would not have an adverse effecton the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevant Site of SpecialScientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard tothe adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likelyto be an increase in dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitatand disturbance to the protected species within the protected areas. As such thedevelopment is contrary to the objectives of policy P5 of the Guildford BoroughCouncil Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2015 - 2034 and conflicts with saved policyNRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the development wouldfail to meet the requirements of Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats andSpecies Regulations 2017, as amended, and as the development does not meet therequirements of Regulation 64 the Local Planning Authority must refuse to grantplanning permission.

Informatives:

1. This decision relates expressly to drawing(s) 4812/3/12 Rev A, 4812/3/10,4812/3/14 Rev A, 4812/3/16 Rev A, 4812/3/13/Rev A, 4812/3/15/Rev A,9411-KC-XX-YTREE-TPP02Rev0 and 4812/3/11and supporting informationreceived on 23/08/19. 29/08/19 and 9/09/19.

2. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town andCountry 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 under a previous application in2017 and provided which addressed potential issues and raised significantobjections to the proposals. Officers have been unable to overcome these issuesand therefore the application has been recommended for refusal.

Officer's Report

Site description.

The site is located within the Green Belt, outside of an Identified Settlement Area. It is also withinthe 400m-5km buffer zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

There is no dwelling currently on site and the land is approximately 1.4Ha in area on the southside of Vicarage Lane, between a dwelling to the east (Astra) and a dwelling to the west(Graylands). The site is currently open with a line of mature trees along the frontage withVicarage Lane. There is also a group of mature trees approximately half way into the site on theeastern side.

There are fields opposite on the opposite side of Vicarage Lane and to the rear of the site. Thesurrounding area includes a mixture of styles and sizes of dwelling, with those to the west of thesite more modest in size, comprising chalet bungalows and bungalows the neighbouring dwellingat Astra is a two storey detached dwelling.

Proposal.

Erection of 6-bed detached dwellinghouse with basement garaging and attached car port withresidential accommodation aboveThe proposed dwelling incorporates accommodation across three floors (basement, ground andfirst floor).

There are 6 parking spaces to be provided within the basement and 3 further spaces provided inan integral car port to the side of the dwelling.

The proposal also incorporates annex accommodation (incorporating a bedroom, bathroom andkitchen / lounge) above the integral car port.

Dimensions:Height: 9.6m (max. ridge); 12.6m inc. basementDepth: 27.3mWidth: 31.3m

Background

The application is similar to an earlier scheme under reference 17/P/00482 which was refused atplanning committee for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is located in the Green Belt outside any identified village andrepresents inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Inaddition, the proposed development by virtue of its scale and location, will have a detrimentalimpact on the openness of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been identified bythe applicant that clearly outweigh the substantial harm caused. The development therefore failsto accord with Policy RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan (as saved by CLG Direction on24/09/07) and Chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.The proposed development, by virtue of the scale, height, depth and bulk of the dwelling andextensive areas of flat roof, will result in an overly large and dominant form of development thatwill appear out of keeping and detract from the rural context and character of the site andsurroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan(as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and Chapter 7 of the NPPF.

3. The site lies within the 400m to 5km zone of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area(TBHSPA). The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significanteffect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate assessment, isunable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in combination with other development,would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area and the relevantSite of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regardto the adverse effect on the integrity of the Special Protection Area in that there is likely to be anincrease in dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitat and disturbance to theprotected species within the protected areas. As such the development is contrary to theobjectives of policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLGDirection on 24/09/07) and conflicts with saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009.

For the same reasons the development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 61 ofThe Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, and as thedevelopment does not meet the requirements of Regulation 62 the Local Planning Authority mustrefuse to grant planning permission

An appeal ref APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876 was dismissed in 2018 on the following grounds:

Inappropriate development in the Green BeltImpact on opennessHarm to the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area

The main issue with the proposal is whether the development constitutes limited infilling within avillage and forms one of the exceptions to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. ThePlanning Inspector under the dismissed appeal agreed with the Council that the site is situatedoutside of the village of Send and concluded that development on the site would have a harmfulimpact on the openness of the Green Belt.

A copy of the Inspectors decision is appended to the report.

Relevant planning history.

Reference: Description: DecisionSummary:

Appeal:

17/P/00482 Erection of 6-bed detacheddwellinghouse with basement garagingand attached car port with residentialaccommodation above.

Refused02.06.18

DismissedAPP/Y3615/W/17/3191876

02.07.18

83/P//00459 Ground floor extension to providegranny accommodation comprisingbedroom / living room and bathroom.

Approve07/06/1983

N/A

Consultations.

Statutory consultees

County Highway Authority: Full visibility plans should be provided showing an ‘x’ distance of 2.4mand a ‘y’ distance of 120m in both directions. (Officer Note: As principle of development has notbeen established, this information has not been sought from the Applicant).

Thames Water: Suggested informatives relating to sewage flooding, surface water drainage andwater supply.

Internal consultees

Arboricultural Officer: No objection subject to conditions.

Send Parish Council: The village of Send has been inset and this site is in the Green Belt. Thereare no extenuating circumstances for the house to be built on green belt land and it does notmeet any identified need in the village.

Third party comments:

25 letters of support have been received outlining the following positive comments:

the plot has been empty for a considerable time and would benefit from the building of adwelling on ita large dwelling would fit better with the surroundings than an estate of smaller dwellingsin keeping with other houses on Vicarage Lanewill provide much needed family housingnet gain in biodiversityvaluable contribution to local economywill remove dilapidated buildingsdrainage will be improved and maintained for the benefit of neighbouring propertiesthe land has no green belt purpose in its current situationgood design, in keeping with Surrey vernacularwill enhance street scenewould infill a gap between buildingspolicy compliant (officer note: the proposal is contrary to Green Belt policy)

Planning policies.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):Chapter 2: Achieving sustainable developmentChapter 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homesChapter 11: Making effective use of landChapter 12 Achieving well designed placesChapter 13 Protecting Green Belt landChapter 15 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

South East Plan 2009NRM6 Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area

New Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2019The Guildford 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).

It is noted on 1 November, the Council published the updated Lans Availability Assessment (LAA)2019. This demonstrates the Council has a five year land supply position of 6.84 years. Inaddition to this, the Government’s recently published Housing Delivery Test indicates thatGuildford’s 2018 measurement is 75%. For the purposes of NPPF footnote 7, this is thereforegreater than the threshold set out in paragraph 215 (25%). Therefore, the Plan and its policiesare regarded as up-to-date in terms of paragraph 11 of the NPPF.

Policy H1: Homes for all of the draft local plan is relevant for this development. Policy P2: Green BeltPolicy D1: Place ShapingPolicy D2 Sustainable design, construction and energyPolicy P5: Thames basin Heaths Special Protection AreaPolicy ID3: Sustainable transport for new developments

Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007): G1 General Standards of DevelopmentG5 Design CodeNE5 Dev. Affecting Trees, Hedges & Woodlands

Neighbourhood Plans:

Send Neighbourhood Development Plan 2019-2034 - Submitted to the Council and has not goneout to consultation therefore it carries very limited weight.

Supplementary planning documents:Thames Basin Heath SPA Avoidance Strategy 2017Residential Design Guide 2004Vehicle Parking Standards 2006Sustainable Design and Construction SPD 2011

Planning considerations.

There are no material changes proposed under the current application and therefore the issuesraised under the previous application still remain.

Therefore the planning considerations in this case are:

presumption in favour of sustainable developmentprinciple of developmentimpact on the Green Beltimpact on the character of the areathe impact on neighbouring amenityhighway/parking considerationsimpact on trees and vegetationThames Basin Heath Special Protection Arealegal agreement requirementssustainabilityvery special circumstances?

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevantpolicies are out-of-date, presumption in favour of sustainable development means grantingpermission unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particularimportance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; orii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits,when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

The site is in an area which requires an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulationsdue to its location in the TBHSPA, as such in accordance with para. 177 of the NPPF thepresumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

Therefore it is considered that paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not engaged in this case.

Principle of the development

The proposed development involves the erection of a 6-bed detached dwellinghouse withbasement garaging and attached car port with residential accommodation above.

Policy H1 of the New Local Plan states that new residential development is required to deliver awide choice of homes to meet a range of accommodation needs as set out in the latest StrategicHousing Market Assessment. New development should provide a mix of housing tenures, typesand sizes appropriate to the site size, characteristics and location.

The SHMA 2015 and Addendum Report 2017 identifies that there is a need for 10% onebedroom, 30% two bedroom, 40% three bedroom and 20% four bedroom market homes. Theproposal would provide a 6 bedroom property which would not contribute to the identified need ofmarket homes as described above.

The NPPF attaches great importance to Green Belt, and the construction of new buildings isgenerally regarded as inappropriate development. If development is inappropriate by definition, itwould not be sustainable as detailed in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. As with previous Green Beltpolicy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not beapproved except in very special circumstances. One of the exceptions to this is limited infilling invillages (paragraph 145).

These matters were fully considered during the recent application and subsequent appeal whichwas dismissed. For completeness the issues are set out again here.

There are two tests at play. The first being whether the site is within the village and the secondbeing whether the proposal constitutes limited infilling (and is therefore appropriate in Green Beltterms).

Policy P2 states that limited infilling is not inappropriate development outside identified settlementboundaries where it can be demonstrated that the site is, as a matter of fact, within the village.

within a village?

Case law (Wood v SoS CLG and another [2014] EWHC 683 (Admin)) has now established thatlimited infilling is applicable to all villages and not restricted to sites that fall within identifiedsettlement boundaries in local plans. As there is no definition of a village contained in planninglegislation, instead the decision-maker is required to consider whether the site is, as a matter offact on the ground, within a village.

The site is over 450 metres away from the edge of the defined settlement area of Send, whichextends along Send Hill to the north of the site. It is noted that the proposed dwelling would besituated between two existing dwellings, however the row of dwellings along Vicarage Lane isseparated from the defined settlement by agricultural fields to the north. The site is also adjoinedby open countryside to the south. Furthermore, the density of development along Vicarage Laneis much lower, and interspersed by significant visual gaps in development, compared to thedensity of development within the defined settlement. This provides a rural and open feel alongVicarage Lane which is clearly separate from the main village of Send and does not exhibitcharacteristics of being within an independent village.

There has been no changes to the Green Belt designation of the site under the Policy P2. As aresult, it is concluded that the site is not located within a village and therefore does not meet theexception noted above.

Therefore, the proposed development would not accord with paragraph 145 of the NPPF or P2Guildford Borough Council Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2015 - 2034 and therefore should beconsidered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The applicant has argued that as the site falls within the boundary of the emerging SendNeighbourhood Plan area then this indicates that it is infact within a village. However, this is aninaccurate evaluation. A neighbourhood plan area is not confirmation that land by default sitswithin a village. The neighbourhood plan does not change the normal test required, andpreviously carried out here to establish whether the site is within a village. Furthermore, none ofthe draft policies provide any support to the applicants argument in this respect. Finally theemerging plan is at a very early stage and policies therefore carry limited weight. Therefore,even if there were some matters in favour of this scheme, (which there are not), then it is unlikelythese would outweigh the provisions of the Development Plan.

limited infilling?

Notwithstanding the above, the site is surrounded on two sides by development, located within aline of well spaced dwellings on the southern side of Vicarage Lane. The site does form a gapwithin a low density built up frontage. The proposal seeks consent for a single detached dwelling.As such, it is accepted that the proposal would fall within the definition of limited infilling.However, as the site is not within a village, it does not meet the exception of 'limited infilling withina village' contained in para 145 of the NPPF.

Impact on the green belt

As the site is currently undeveloped with only small dilapidated existing structures to bedemolished, the erection of a dwelling will impact on openness. The site appears open with thefew existing structures obscured by existing vegetation when viewed from the road.

The Planning Inspector notes in the dismissed appeal decision that the site reflects the opennessof the large agricultural fields on the opposite side of Vicarage Lane and those beyond itssouth-western boundary. Furthermore, the undeveloped nature of the site currently provides asizeable and distinct gap between the dwellings which contributes to the openness of the GreenBelt. It is therefore considered that the proposed large, tall and very bulky detached dwelling,spread across the plot, by its very nature, would result in the loss of this gap and would have adetrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy P2 of the Local Plan andChapter 13 of the NPPF. The Planning Inspector gave substantial weight to the harm to theopenness of the Green Belt and dismissed the earlier appeal on these grounds.

Impact on the character of the area

The surrounding area is rural in character, incorporating a mixture of styles and sizes of dwellingsset on spacious plots. All of the surrounding properties incorporate traditional pitched roof forms.The properties to the west of the site are more modest in size, comprising chalet bungalows andbungalows and the neighbouring dwelling at Astra is a two storey detached dwelling

Although the proposed plot width and spacing to the boundaries would reflect the characteristicsof the surroundings, the proposed dwelling would be substantial in size and would be significantlylarger and bulkier than the surrounding dwellings, particularly the more modest dwellings locatedto the west of the site. The depth of the dwelling in particular would be substantial andconsiderably greater than any of the surrounding dwellings.

The maximum height of the dwelling would measure to 9.5 metres to the western side of thedwelling. As a result, the dwelling will appear overly tall and bulky, particularly in relation to theneighbouring property to the west which is a modest chalet style dwelling. The ridge height of theproposed dwelling then steps down to 8.7 metres across the main element of roof. Although theheight has been stepped down, due to the depth of the dwelling and the overall footprint, theproposal incorporates extensive areas of flat roof over the main dwelling and the car port / annexelement. These large areas of flat roof would result in overly bulky flank elevations to the dwellingand would not be in keeping with the character of the surrounding properties which incorporatetraditional pitched roof forms.

The proposed dwelling also incorporates a large car port element with an annex flat above whichwill extend forwards of the main elevation of the dwelling by 12 metres. This substantial projectionforwards would not be in keeping with the surrounding dwellings which have their main frontagesfacing towards Vicarage Lane and do not feature forward projections from the main frontages ofthe dwellings. This is with the exception of Saddlers which is set back much further from the road.

The proposed dwelling also incorporates a large basement. Although predominantlysubterranean, it will be visible on the north eastern elevation by virtue of the excavation to providefor the access to the proposed parking area beneath the dwelling. This will exacerbate thesignificant height and bulk of the dwelling when viewed from the north east, to the detriment ofthe character of the surroundings.

It is noted that there have been no changes to the current proposals in terms of the design andscale of the proposed dwelling from the earlier refusal. The Council considers that the scale ofdevelopment is extensive and not within the rural context and character of the surrounding area.

However, the Planning Inspector under the dismissed appeal Ref APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876considered that the development would broadly follow the pattern of development in the area andthe size of the development would not be so great that it would result in harm to the character ofdevelopment in Vicarage Lane and there would be no conflict with the Saved Local Plan PolicyG5. Therefore the Council's previous refusal reason on impact to the character of the area wasnot upheld at appeal. This carries material weight in the assessment of the current applicationand therefore the application is not recommended for refusal on these grounds.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

Astra (to the east)

A minimum separation distance of 7 metres will be retained between the proposed annexeelement of the dwelling and the shared boundary with Astra which consists of mature planting.This element of the dwelling does not incorporate any windows on the flank elevation facingtowards Astra. The separation distance then increases to 20.5 metres between the main twostorey element of the dwelling and the shared boundary. Two first floor windows are proposed onthe south western side elevation which would be visible to Astra. However, these will serveen-suite bathrooms and can therefore be obscurely glazed. Further windows on this elevation willbe screened from the neighbouring property by the roofs of the single storey elements.

As a result and due to the separation distances between the proposed dwelling and the sharedboundary with Astra, there will be no detrimental impact in terms of a loss of light, overbearingimpact or loss of privacy to this neighbouring property.

Graylands (to the west)

There is currently no screening between the proposal site and the neighbouring propertyGraylands. It is noted that the new planting is proposed along the western boundary with thisproperty.

The north eastern side elevation of the proposed dwelling incorporates a secondary bedroomwindow at first floor level and four windows at ground floor level. A balcony is also proposed atfirst floor level on the rear elevation. A minimum separation distance of 21.2 metres will beretained between the proposed dwelling and the shared boundary with Astra.

This separation distance, together with the proposed new planting along the boundary will ensurethat there will be no adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.

Also, as a result of the separation distance, there will be no adverse impact in terms of anunacceptable overbearing impact or loss of light to the occupants of Graylands.

As such, it is concluded that the proposal accords with policy G1(3) of the saved Local Plan andthe 'Core Principles' contained within the NPPF.

Highway / parking considerations

The proposal shows the existing vehicular access to the site will be modified to provide theaccess to the development.

The proposal also incorporates a basement parking area for 6 cars and a car port for three cars.There will also be a driveway with space for parking several cars.The County Highway Authority has requested that A visibility plan should be provided showing an‘x’ distance of 2.4m and a ‘y’ distance of 120m in both directions to the highway. Should theapplication have been acceptable in principle, this information would have been sought during theapplication.

Impact on trees and vegetation

There is a line of mature trees along the frontage of the site and several mature trees within thesite, particularly along the eastern boundary.

The proposed development would ensure that the mature trees along the frontage of the site canbe retained, with some of the trees in the middle of the site being removed.

The Council's Tree Officer has assessed the proposals and has no objection to the loss of thetrees identified to be removed, subject to a suggested condition to ensure the retained trees areadequately protected during the course of development.

Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA)

The application site is located within the 400m – 5km buffer zone of the TBHSPA. NaturalEngland advise that new residential development in this proximity of the protected site has thepotential to significantly adversely impact on the integrity of the site through increased dogwalking and an increase in general recreational use. The application proposes a net increase of 1residential unit and as such has the potential, in combination with other development, to have asignificant adverse impact on the protected sites.

The Council adopted the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategywhich provides a framework by which applicants can provide or contribute to Suitable AlternativeNatural Green Space (SANGS) within the borough which along with contributions to StrategicAccess Management and Monitoring (SAMM) can mitigate the impact of development. In thisinstance the development requires a SANG and a SAMM contribution which should be securedby a Legal Agreement.

As the application is deemed to be unacceptable for the reasons which have already beendiscussed, a legal agreement has not been completed to secure the above contributions asmitigation. As a result, the proposal would fail to comply with the Thames Basin Heath AvoidanceStrategy.

Subsequently because the application is not being recommended for approval and there is nolegal agreement in place to secure SAMM and SANG payments therefore it is not considered thatthe proposal would be in accordance with the mitigation measures set out within the AppropriateAssessment agreed by Natural England.

Legal agreement requirements

The three tests as set out in Regulation 122(2) require S106 agreements to be:(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;(b) directly related to the development; and(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

As the application would result in the net gain of 1 new residential unit, in order for thedevelopment to be acceptable in planning terms, a s.106 agreement is required as part of anysubsequent planning approval to secure a financial contribution towards a SANG and SAMM, inline with the Guildford Borough Council TBHSPA Avoidance Strategy 2017. This strategy hasbeen formally adopted by the Council. In line with this strategy and the requirements ofRegulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations 2017, a s.106 agreement is required to ensure that theadditional residential units proposed by this development would not have any likely significanteffect on the TBHSPA. In this instance it is noted that due to concerns which have been raisedabove, the Council has not invited the applicant to enter into a s.106 agreement.

Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has not been invited to enter into a s.106 agreementon this occasion, the Council is aware on the limitation on the use of pooling of planningcontributions contained in Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations2010. It is noted that this relates to an obligation which 'provides for the funding or provision ofrelevant infrastructure. In this instance, the contributions would have been required to improveexisting SANGS and ensure they are maintained in perpetuity; the SANGS is existinginfrastructure which is to be improved to ensure that they have suitable capacity to mitigate theimpact of the residential development.

When interpreting Regulation 123 regard must be had to the definition of funding which isprovided at Regulation 123(4); this states that "funding" in relation to the funding of infrastructure,means the provision of that infrastructure by way of funding. As noted above, no new SANGS orother infrastructure would be provided by the contributions and accordingly the Council does notconsider that Regulation 123 prevents collecting these contributions. It is also noted that SAMMdoes not fall within the definition of infrastructure and is therefore not subject to the Regulation123 restrictions. The Council has sought Counsels Opinion in respect of its approach to SANGSand SAMM contributions and this supports our approach. In conclusion, if the application wasdeemed to be acceptable, the Council is of the opinion that the legal agreement would have metthe three tests set out above.

Sustainability

As set out in Policy D2 of the New Local Plan and the Council's Sustainable Design andConstruction SPD 2011, there is a requirement to achieve a 20 percent reduction in carbonemissions through the use of on site low or zero carbon technologies and include water efficiencymeasures in line with building regulations. These measures can be secured by condition.

'Very Special Circumstances?'

The application would provide a net gain of one residential unit, which would be of benefit.Another benefit that weighs in favour of the proposal is derived from the economic benefit of thedevelopment during the construction phase and also the subsequent economic benefit that arisesfrom the contribution made to the local economy from the future occupants of the developmentand moderate weight is attributed to this benefit.

However, the site is not located in a village, and therefore does not comply with any of theexceptions which allow the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt. The proposal istherefore inappropriate development, and substantial weight is given to this fact. Whilst it isacknowledged that the site is limited infilling in a small linear development, this does not form thevery special circumstances required to outweigh the principle Green Belt issue.

Furthermore, failure to secure the mitigation of the development on the Thames Basin HeathsSpecial Protection Area also weighs heavily against the proposed development and considerableweight is attached to this harm.

The combination of the adverse impacts of the development as noted above would thereforesignificantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development whenassessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole and is therefore recommendedfor refusal.

Conclusion

The proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt and follows a dismissedappeal in respect of a very similar proposal. There are no very special circumstances tooutweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the application is therefore recommended for refusal.

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2018

by Patrick Whelan BA(Hons) Dip Arch MA MSc ARB RIBA RTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 2 July 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876

Land off Vicarage Lane, Send, Woking GU23 7JN

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs L N Grant against the decision of Guildford Borough

Council.

The application Ref 17/P/00482, dated 1 March 2017, was refused by notice dated

20 June 2018.

The development proposed is the erection of a 6-bed detached dwelling house with

basement garaging and attached car port with residential accommodation above.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

2. Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) andsaved policy RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (LP) indicate that

the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriatedevelopment in the Green Belt. They set out a number of exceptions to this

presumption, the criteria for which, it is common ground, the proposal wouldnot meet. I have no reason to conclude differently.

3. The proposed development would therefore be inappropriate development in

the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful, and should not be approvedexcept in very special circumstances. Accordingly, the main issues are:

its effect on the openness of the Green Belt;

its effect on the character of the area;

whether it would provide adequate mitigation for the Thames Basin Heaths

Special Protection Area; and,

if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of

inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by otherconsiderations, so as to amount to the very special circumstancesnecessary to justify the development.

Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876

Reasons

Openness of the Green Belt

4. The site the subject of this appeal appears as a field enclosed by mature trees,

in a ribbon of widely spaced houses scattered along Vicarage Lane. It islocated outside any identified settlement area, and within the Green Belt. It isproposed to build a 6-bedroom house.

5. The Framework states that openness is one of the essential characteristics ofGreen Belts. Openness is generally considered to be the absence of built

development. My impression of the site is that it appears open and relativelyflat, with the few existing structures almost obscured by long grass. It reflectsthe openness of the large agricultural fields on the opposite side of Vicarage

Lane and those beyond its south-western boundary.

6. In this context, the volume of the proposed house, rising to around 9.5m with

a width of around 31m and a depth of around 27m would reduce substantiallythe openness of the site. In addition, the overall profile of the house, inrelation to the breadth of the site would be great. It would exacerbate the

spatial loss of openness. This weighs against the proposal. Paragraph 88 of theFramework states that in considering any planning application, substantial

weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

The character of the area

7. There is little to set the design of the proposed house apart from other houses

in Vicarage Lane. It would have a similar plot size and length; it would strike asensitive mid-point between its neighbours for a front building line; its plot

coverage and orientation would be compatible with its neighbours. It wouldretain a substantial area of landscape towards Vicarage Lane and it would besited centrally in the plot, retaining side gaps characteristic of the area.

8. Its materials and detailing would reflect the features of some of the housesalong Vicarage Lane or in the wider area. The scale of the main roof with its

wide front gable is large; however, the smaller roofs, dormers, canopies andchimneys in the foreground and background would diminish the effect of bulk.

9. I appreciate the Council’s point about the substantial size of the building, its

forward wing and basement; by comparison with its smaller neighbours inVicarage Lane, this is a large house. However, I did not identify any

overriding, single scale of development in Vicarage Lane which bears on thisplot and with which it would appear at odds. It would broadly follow thedistinctive pattern of development in the area. While it may be larger than

houses nearby, the difference would not be so great that it would result inharm to the character of development in Vicarage Lane.

10. On the evidence before me and from what I could see, I see no conflict withsaved LP policy G5 which requires new buildings to respect the scale, height,

plot sizes and building lines of the surrounding environment and to provide ahigh standard of landscape design.

Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876

The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA)

11. The appeal site lies within the 400m to 5km ‘buffer’ zone of the SPA. LP savedpolicy NE1 and saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009 require

development affecting the SPA to demonstrate that adequate measures are putin place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on its ecologicalintegrity.

12. The Council’s Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy2017 (AS) sets out how financial contributions from new housing development

towards the provision of suitable alternative natural green space (SANG) andstrategic access, management, and monitoring (SAMM) can mitigate adverseeffects on the SPA. While the Council refused the planning application for failing

to mitigate is effects, the appellant has submitted a section 106 agreement toprovide financial contributions towards SANG and SAMM measures, in

accordance with the AS.

13. I am satisfied that the payment of the SANG and SAMM contributions would benecessary, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably

related to it in scale and kind. As such, they would accord with Regulation 122of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Paragraph 204 of

the Framework. I therefore conclude on this issue that appropriate mitigationmeasures are in place to protect the integrity of the SPA, and that there wouldbe no conflict with LP saved policy NE1 and saved policy NRM6 of the South

East Plan 2009.

Other considerations

14. The Framework advises that inappropriate development in the Green Beltshould not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Very specialcircumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by

reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed byother considerations.

15. The appellant refers to Green Belt policy P2 in the emerging Local Plan (eLP).As this Plan is under examination I cannot be sure its policies will not change,which limits the weight I can accord it. Notwithstanding this, it indicates that

limited infilling is not inappropriate development outside identified settlementboundaries where it can be demonstrated that the site is, as a matter of fact,

within the village.

16. The appeal site is more than 450m from the edge of the defined settlement ofSend and separated from it by substantial gaps in development and open

fields. The pattern of development here is distinctly more scattered andloosely spaced than the denser, more finely textured grain of development in

the village. The proposal would not therefore fall under the exception toinappropriate development as set out in eLP policy P2. There is no substantive

evidence before me that the Green Belt designation of the site is to change orthat it is unnecessary to keep the land permanently open.

17. I appreciate that the site falls in a ribbon of development. However the houses

are loosely spaced and generally set well back from Vicarage Lane. They do notreduce the openness of this site which is wide and makes a significant

contribution to openness. I acknowledge that there would be no merging oftowns or sprawl of a large built-up area. However, the site reflects the

Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/W/17/3191876

openness of the fields to its north and south. The substantial bulk of this

building and the loss of openness would be an encroachment into the countryside. The development would undermine the essential characteristics of

Green Belts which are their openness and permanence.

18. I note the appellant’s reference to a planning permission in Glaziers Lane, for ahouse in a ribbon of development. I have not been provided with the details of

that scheme so cannot draw any parallel to this proposal. In any event, theCouncil concluded that site was in a village, against which the exception to

inappropriate development of bullet point 5 of paragraph 89 of the Frameworkapplied. I have considered this proposal on its own merits where the opennessof the site and the surrounding area, and the substantial spacing of the houses

have a significant bearing on openness, and already concluded that it is outsidethe village.

19. The lack of harm in relation to the character of the area and the ecologicalintegrity of the SPA are neutral factors. Against this, I have found that therewould be harm from inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm to

its openness, to which I attach substantial weight.

20. The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable

housing sites. This means that policies relating to the supply of housing shouldnot be considered up-to-date, and the proposal should be considered in thecontext of the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in

the Framework. However, given my conclusions above, and in accordance withfootnote 9 of paragraph 14 of the Framework, this does not indicate that

permission should be granted in this case. Because of the environmental harmidentified, the proposal would not be sustainable development.

21. Drawing all these factors 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 development in the

Green Belt do not exist.

Conclusion

22. For the reasons above, and taking into account all other matters raised, the

appeal is dismissed.

Patrick Whelan

INSPECTOR