Case Reference: 3228107

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 17 March 2020
by Christopher Butler BA(Hons) PG Dip TP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 04 June 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/19/3228107
Little Chalfont Village Hall, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont, Amersham,
Buckinghamshire HP7 9QB
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area.
• The application Ref PL/18/2249/FA, dated 13 June 2018, was refused by notice dated
6 November 2018.
• The development proposed is the demolition of existing buildings, erection of two-storey
community centre, alteration to existing access, formation of new vehicular access and
provision of cycle parking, car park, bin stores, boundary treatment and landscaping.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Little Chalfont Parish Council against
Buckinghamshire Council – Chiltern Area, formerly Chiltern District Council.
This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. On 1 April 2020 the name of the decision-making authority changed from
Chiltern District Council to Buckinghamshire Council – Chiltern Area. This is
reflected in the banner heading above.
4. The appellant has submitted two versions of the Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (PEA) with this appeal. The first version, PEA report reference
ECO1808, dated 26 January 2016 was submitted with the original planning
application. The second version, PEA report reference ECO1808b, dated
30 October 2018 (PEA2) was submitted prior to the Council’s Planning
Committee meeting, but the Council considered the PEA2 to be submitted too
late to allow itself time to consult its Ecological Advisor and declined to accept
it.
5. The Council and interested parties to this appeal have had the opportunity to
comment upon the PEA2, as part of the appeal process, and as such I do not
consider that any party, with an interest in this appeal, is prejudiced by me
taking it into account.
Main Issues
6. The main issues are:
• Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green
Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the
National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework);
• The effect of the development on the character and appearance of Cokes
Lane and the surrounding area, including ancient woodland, protected trees
and biodiversity;
• The effect of the development on highway and pedestrian safety; and
• If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be outweighed by other
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary
to justify the proposal.
Reasons
Whether inappropriate development
7. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental
aim of Green Belt policy is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment
and prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, as the essential
characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
8. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green
Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings
is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, save for those circumstances
as listed therein. Additionally, Paragraph 146 of the Framework also advises
“Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green
Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes
of including land within it.”
9. Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (Adopted November 2011)
(CS) forms part of the Council’s Spatial Strategy and states it “…aims to protect
the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt by focusing
new development… on land within existing settlements not covered by those
designations…” Policy GB2 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (Adopted
September 1997) (including alterations adopted May 2001) Consolidated
September 2007 (LP) states that new buildings in the Green Belt will be
inappropriate development unless they would be one of the listed exceptions
specified in the Policy.
10. Policy CS1 of the CS and Policy GB2 of the LP are not wholly consistent with
the Framework. The exceptions identified in Policy GB2 do not list all the
exceptions set out in Paragraph 145 of the Framework. Whilst the appellant
and Council initially appear to agree that the proposal would amount to
inappropriate development, especially as the appellant suggest ‘very special
circumstances’ necessary to justify the proposal exist, many of the claimed
very special circumstances appear to be potential exemptions, as identified in
Paragraphs 145 and 146 of the Framework. These include the ‘Fallback’
position with a Community Right to Build Order (CRBO); the ‘Brownfield nature
of the site’; and reference to the development being a replacement
facility/replacement of the existing hall with the new community building.
11. Dealing first with the CRBO, as referred to in Paragraph 146 f) of the
Framework. A proposal that amounts to development identified by this
Paragraph of the Framework would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt,
provided it preserves its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of
including land within it. However, no evidence has been provided to me that
demonstrates the development is being brought forward under a CRBO. In the
absence of any certainty in this regard, the proposal cannot reasonably be
considered to be development not inappropriate in the Green Belt by virtue of
Paragraph 146 f).
12. Turning to the appellant’s reference to the ‘Brownfield nature of the site’, I note
that part of the development site incorporates an area of trees and scrub that
would be removed to make way for the proposed community hall and its
ancillary development. This area of woodland is designated as Ancient and
Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW), as defined by Natural England in its Ancient
Woodland Inventory (AWI). There is no evidence to suggest that this part of
the site that falls within the ASNW is previously developed land. As such not all
of the site could be considered to be ‘Brownfield’ or previously developed land.
13. Paragraph 145 g) of the framework, states limited infilling or the partial or
complete redevelopment of previously developed land need not be
inappropriate development within the Green Belt, but this is subject to one of
two criteria. The first of which is that it would not have a greater impact on the
openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. The other criteria in
Paragraph 145 g) of the Framework is not relevant in this instance, as it relates
to meeting an identified affordable housing need, which is not being proposed
by this application.
14. Even were all the land proposed to be developed considered to be brownfield
land, which it is not, it must be noted that the existing village hall is a single
storey building, whilst the proposed development would be two storeys in
height.
15. The appellant has provided figures for the Gross Internal Area (GIA) of the
building, as well as existing and proposed volume, widths, depths and heights
(eaves and ridge). These figures have not been disputed by the Council.
Overall the proposed building would increase in width and height, whilst being
marginally shorter in depth compared to the existing building. As a result, the
floorspace of the proposed development (GIA ground and first floor) would be
some 732m2, as compared to the existing buildings combined footprint of
317m2, an increase of some 130.9%. It is also common ground that the new
building would have a volume of 2,497m3, compared to the combined volume
of the existing buildings of 1,050m3, an increase in volume of some 137.8%.
16. The proposed building would be substantial in size, which when compared to
the existing built form on site would be larger. Notwithstanding the appellants’
submissions in this regard, it is clear to me that the proposal would have a
greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing
development. This would be due not only to the increased footprint and volume
of the proposed development as a whole, but also the increased height by
including a second storey element. The proposed development would be more
substantial in terms of its construction and appearance than the existing village
hall and storage buildings, which are relatively low scale and unobtrusive in the
landscape.
17. Whilst landscaping would have the potential to help integrate the new
development into its context, it would not alter the fact that the proposed
development would be significantly larger than what exists, such that it would
not mitigate the loss of openness. For the reasons outlined above the proposed
built form alone would have a greater effect on openness than the existing
development and I have no reason to believe that the proposed development
would meet the criteria of Framework paragraph 145 g).
18. In regard to the development being a replacement facility/replacement of the
existing hall with the new community building, for the reasons set out above, I
consider that the development would be materially larger than the building it
would replace. On this basis, it would not meet the criteria of Framework
paragraph 145 d).
19. Finally, the Council in its first ground of refusal refer to the greater spread of
hard-surfacing having a severe detrimental impact on the openness of the
Green Belt. From the description of the development such hard-surfacing would
be related to the alteration to the existing access, together with the formation
of a new vehicular access and areas related to the provision of car park, bin
stores and cycle parking.
20. The alterations to the existing access and the provision of such hard-standing
areas would in my opinion amount to engineering operations as referred to in
Paragraph 146 b) of the Framework. However, for development to be
considered as not inappropriate in the Green Belt under this Paragraph the
development needs to preserve its openness and not conflict with the purposes
of including land within it.
21. It is clear from the plans and details submitted that the proposed parking area
and related hard-surfacing would significantly increase as a result of the
development. This area would be located to the rear of the library; be visible
from the site frontage and from the junction of Cokes Lane and the access to
the Dr Challoner’s High School.
22. The proposed community centre, would have increased capacity and
functionality, over and above that of the current village hall, and would,
potentially, attract more users/attendees. The proposed parking and related
hard-surfaced area would be new and fit for purpose, and as such would also
be likely to be more attractive to users. When considered together, these
factors suggest that the car park and hard-surfaced area would result in a level
of use that would reduce openness. As such, the proposed car park and
hard-surfaced area would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and
would conflict with the purposes of including land within it, as it would fail to
check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
23. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to believe the proposed
development would meet any of the other exceptions set out in Framework
paragraphs 145 and 146 and therefore the proposed development would
amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Character and appearance, including Ancient Woodland, protected trees and
biodiversity
Character and appearance, including ASNW
24. The site comprises the existing village hall and is adjoined to the south by a
public library and to the north by a public car park. The village hall and library
are both single storey and nestle discretely into the surrounding woodland
setting, as does the public car park. They are clearly more spacious in nature
and sylvan in appearance than the more built up developments in the vicinity
of the site, which are located on the west side of Cokes Lane, northern side of
White Lion Road and further south on Cokes Lane.
25. The existing village hall, adjoining public library, public car park and their
immediate surroundings play a notable role in the transition from the built up
area of Little Chalfont. When combined with the hedgerows and trees within
and adjoining the site, including those in close proximity to the site and along
the site boundaries, there is a more open and verdant quality to the site and its
surroundings than the more built up developments mentioned above.
26. The introduction of the presence of considerable built form and associated
hard-surfaced area, over and above that which already exist, would
considerably diminish the spaciousness and sylvan character currently provided
by the appeal site to the detriment of the character and appearance of Cokes
Lane and the surrounding area.
27. As noted above, part of the development site incorporates an area of
designated ASNW. A Tree Preservation Order1 (TPO) also covers the site. The
standing advice2 of Natural England, the government’s adviser on ancient
woodland, is a material consideration to which I attach significant weight. It
states that ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and that
there should be a buffer zone of at least 15m from ancient woodland to avoid
root damage. It also advises that the buffer zone should contribute to wider
ecological networks, and be part of the green infrastructure of the area.
28. No formal enclosure between the ASNW and the site currently exist. Indeed,
part of the site proposed to be developed is covered with trees that lie within
the ASNW. The development would result in the removal of some of the trees
within and adjoining the site, including some of the trees within the ASNW.
These trees are also covered by the TPO, as are some that are proposed to be
removed that lie outside of the ASNW, as defined on the AWI.
29. The appellant’s Tree Survey3 identifies a number of trees within and adjoining
the ASNW as trees of low quality or trees with less than 10 year life span
remaining. Whilst some trees identified as low quality are retained, others are
shown as being removed as part of the development. The Tree Survey also
identifies a proportion of the trees to be removed, both within and adjoining
the ASNW, as trees categorised as trees of moderate quality and of landscape
value.
1 Tree Preservation Order No. 4, 1948
2 Forestry Commission & Natural England standing advice - Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees:
protecting them from development, published 2014, updated 2018
3 BS5837 Tree Survey dated 22 September 2014 (Updated and Stage 2 April 2017) submitted with the planning
application, as clarified by appellant’s response to the Council’s Tree Officers comments dated 12 April 2018.
30. Whilst the area of ASNW and trees affected by the development is not large,
when compared to the overall size of the ASNW and number of trees in the
area generally, they do make a positive contribution to the wider character and
appearance of the surrounding area. Although there has been some
disturbance to parts of the edge of the ASNW, these areas still have
established tree growth and act as buffer zones to the less disturbed areas of
ASNW, which lie further within the woodland.
31. The majority of trees identified, especially those that would need to be
removed to allow the construction of the building (The trees identified in the
TPO as G16) and those within the new access and parking area (The trees
identified in the TPO as G7, T8 and T25) contain trees of apparent reasonable
health and of not insignificant stature. Indeed, more likely than not these trees
would continue to provide a valuable contribution in the medium to long-term
to the local landscape. This is particularly notable when bearing in mind that
many of these are seen against the backdrop of the ASNW or are comprised
within the assemblage of trees within the ASNW, that make a significant
contribution to the character and appearance of Cokes Lane and the wider
surrounding area in general.
32. The various intended tree removals, when considered cumulatively, would have
a stark visual effect when experienced from Cokes Lane. The removals would
lead to the erosion of the site’s wooded character and remove their ability to
act as a buffer to the ASNW. The cumulative value of the trees intended to be
removed is significant and I consider that the proposal would harm the ASNW
and the site’s overall woodland character.
33. I acknowledge reference is made to the possibility to partially mitigate the loss
of part of the ASNW, by extending the ASNW to the south, if the landowners
consent can be obtained, or by implementing a woodland management plan for
the retained woodland. However, the adjoining ASNW is not within the control
of the appellant and there is no evidence before me that indicates the
landowner would be agreeable or has given consent to enable such mitigation
to take place.
34. Government advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance4 (PPG) is that
such a negatively worded condition (Grampian condition), should not be used
where there are no prospects at all of the action in question being performed
within the time-limit imposed by the permission. In the absence of such
evidence, or any other mechanism that secures such mitigation, I am not
satisfied that the proposed development would provide adequate mitigation in
this regard.
35. I have also considered whether a planning condition requiring the appellant to
enter into a planning obligation would make the development acceptable.
However, the proposed development is not complex and there is no clear
evidence that the delivery of the development would be otherwise at serious
risk. As such it would not meet the exceptional circumstances for a negatively
worded condition as set out in the PPG.5
4 PPG: Use of Planning Conditions - Paragraph: 009 Reference ID: 21a-009-20140306
5 PPG: Use of Planning Conditions - Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 21a-010-20190723
36. The site currently makes an important and valuable contribution to the
character and appearance of the local area. Even should mitigation, along the
lines indicated by the appellant, be secured, any benefits of this would be
outweighed by the associated consequence of areas of tree cover being
removed as a result of the development, to the detriment of the area’s
character and appearance.
37. For the above reasons, the proposal would cause harm to the character and
appearance of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policies GC4, TW3 and TW6
of the LP and with Policies CS4, CS20, CS24 and CS32 of the CS, in so far as
these Policies seek to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment,
including the landscape and important natural features, such as ancient
woodland, trees and hedgerows.
Protected trees to be retained
38. The development would be constructed in close proximity to a number of trees,
covered by the TPO, that are shown as being retained. The development would
fall within the Root Protection Zone (RPZ) of Tree T13, as identified in the TPO,
and which the Tree Survey identifies as a tree of the highest quality and of
landscape value. Whilst I note the proposed use of ‘minimal dig’, ‘temporary
ground protection’ and ‘Construction Exclusion Zone’, the fact that the
development falls within the RPZ is a significant concern.
39. There would inevitably be some anticipated effects resulting from the proximity
of the development to this tree and they would include potential threat of
damage to building, loss of light/shading, and from other anticipated nuisances
such as leaf littering. I note the appellant’s use of architectural features to
maximise light ingress, the indicated regular cleaning of windows and the
potential to use design features to manage leaf litter, but I do not consider that
these will significantly reduce these perceived nuisances.
40. The existence of the TPO is a relevant factor when gauging the level of future
risk that retained trees would be subjected to. Indeed, separate future
applications would need to be made and approved by the Council before works
to protected trees could lawfully be carried out. The appellant is clearly fully
aware of the presence of protected trees, but I do not consider that these
factors would fully account for the anticipated future pressures that would be
placed upon retained trees at the site. This is not least due to the significant
scale and coverage of the tree canopies being retained and the potential threat
of damage to building, loss of light/shading, and from other anticipated
nuisances arising from the proximity of the development to the adjoining
protected trees.
41. When combined with the concerns regarding the proximity of the development
to the RPZ of protected tree T13, I consider that the proposal would be likely to
have a negative long-term effect upon the integrity of protected trees. This
would thus lead to a further erosion of the site’s woodland character and the
ASNW and would exacerbate the significant harm I have already identified that
would be caused by the proposal to the character and appearance of the area.
42. The proposal conflicts with Policy TW3 of the LP, which seeks to protect trees
covered by TPO’s, including trees of good quality, or landscape significance, or
amenity value; and Policy CS4 of the CS, which requires development to have
regard to the sustainable development principles that include the preservation
and enhancement of important features of the natural environment, including
trees and hedgerows.
Ecology/Biodiversity
43. In terms of the Council’s fifth reason for refusal, it raised concerns that the PEA
was based on ecological surveys undertaken in 2015 and that in the absence of
up-to-date ecological assessments, it could not be certain that the proposal
would not adversely affect protected species and/or their habitats and feeding
grounds.
44. Although the Council declined to accept the PEA2, it has been submitted as part
of the appeal and, for the reasons set out above, I have taken it into
consideration. The PEA2 notes that, with the exception of ancient woodland,
there are no statutory designated nature conservation sites within 1km of the
application site.
45. It also considers it highly unlikely that the proposal will have any adverse
impacts upon protected species. However, it recommends that trees should be
double checked for potential bat roost features prior to their felling and
vegetation removal and the demolition of buildings should only take place
outside of the bird nesting season, unless a survey has been first undertaken
that demonstrates there are no nesting birds on the area within the site to be
cleared.
46. The PEA2 also notes that the proposal will result in the loss of an area of ASNW
and that such woodland can have significant ecological, landscape and
historical value. However, it considers the value of the woodland to be limited,
at least in the immediate vicinity of the site, due to the relatively young and
even age of the trees, paucity of woodland structure and general dominance of
bramble at the expense of a more diverse ground flora.
47. Whilst the Council’s Ecological Advisor raised objections to the originally
submitted PEA, the Council have not provided any further comments or
observations in regard to the PEA2. Indeed, no subsequent evidence, regarding
this matter has been provided by the Council. Despite this, I note Natural
England standing advised that ASNW is an irreplaceable habitat. Having
considered the PEA2, and on the basis of the evidence before me, I am not
persuaded by the PEA2 that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable
impact on the ASNW habitat or that exceptional circumstances exist in order to
make such loss of ASNW habitat possible on biodiversity grounds.
48. Bearing the above in mind and in consideration of the evidence before me, it is
clear that the development would result in harm to the ASNW. As such, in line
with paragraph 175 of the Framework, this harm to the loss or deterioration of
irreplaceable habitats should be weighed against any public benefits of the
proposal. I consider this ‘habitat balance’ in the Other Considerations and
Overall Planning Balance sections of this decision letter.
Highway and pedestrian safety
49. The Framework considers that transport issues should be considered from the
earliest stages of development proposals and seeks the fullest possible use of
public transport, walking and cycling, and advises that parking standards
should take account of (amongst other things) the accessibility of development
and the levels of car ownership. It also states that “Maximum parking
standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set
where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for
managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development
in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public
transport.”
50. A Transport Assessment (TA) was submitted with the original planning
application, which sought to justify the level of parking provision proposed. It
considered the site to be sustainably located, with a range of facilities and
services within an acceptable walking distance. Indeed, the site is located close
to bus services and is only a short distance from the Chalfont and Latimer Train
Station. As such, the site is accessible by a range of nearby public transport
options.
51. The development proposes 22 off-street car parking spaces, including 3
disability parking spaces. Additionally, I note that a pay and display car park
immediately adjoins the appeal site. The Highway Authority for the area
provided comments on the proposal at the planning application stage and
raised no objection to the development, subject to the imposition of conditions.
Nonetheless, the Council points out that the Highway Authority is not
responsible for setting parking standards, and is only responsible for assessing
access and highway issues.
52. The Council’s fourth reason for refusal considers the development would not
meet its Parking and Manoeuvring Standards and states “in the absence of
evidence demonstrating that a lower level of on-site parking for a Class D1 use
in this locality would be sufficient, it considered that the proposal would be
likely to result in the onstreet (Sic) parking of vehicles, which would result in
danger and inconvenience to users of the public highway.”
53. Additionally, in regard to this issue, I note the Council’s Officer report to its
Planning Committee and its appeal statement of case refer to the absence of
locally based evidence.
54. The Council acknowledges that its parking standards pre-date the Framework,
but questions how closely the Highway Authority examined the data submitted
in the appellant’s TA. The Council considers that the records used in the TA did
not give a clear indication of vehicular activity across a 7 day week and only
covered ad hoc days. They also pointed out that the data used was dated
several years ago. It also questioned whether the sites chosen for analysis,
which were located elsewhere in the country, were representative of the high
car ownership levels in Little Chalfont.
55. However, the Council has provided little, if any, evidence that counter the
appellant’s TA or indicates that a lesser standard in terms of on-site motor
vehicle parking should not be applied. Indeed, no substantive or persuasive
evidence that demonstrates the appellant’s TA, or data within it, is flawed or
that sites chosen for analysis were unrepresentative or incompatible with the
appeal site has been provided.
56. Furthermore, this reason for refusal clearly raises highway safety issues, which
the Council themselves acknowledge fall within the remit of the Highway
Authority in terms of providing comment and advice in regard to the
application.
57. The proposed development would be within easy walking distance of large
residential areas in the vicinity of the site and is located close to public
transport. Users of the development would have the option of accessing the
site by methods other than the private car and alternative pay and display
motor vehicle parking is available in close proximity to the site. Moreover,
there is no clear evidence of a local parking issue within the locality before me.
No evidence of high levels of on-street parking demand have been provided
and, as stated above, the Highway Authority did not object to the proposal,
subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions. Indeed, the Highway
Authority noted “…there are parking restrictions in the form of double yellow
lines which prevent inappropriate parking in the vicinity of the site…”
58. As such, I am not persuaded that a lower level of off-street parking provision
on the development site, in conflict with Policies TR11, TR15 and TR16 of the
LP would result in vehicles parking on-street. Additionally, I am not persuaded
that the lower level of off-street parking provision would result in danger
and/or inconvenience to users of the public highway or that harmful effect on
highway safety would arise.
59. On the basis of the evidence before me, I therefore conclude that the proposal
would not have a harmful effect on parking in the area or a severe impact on
highway safety and find no conflict with Policy TR2 of the LP or Policies CS25 or
CS26 of the CS. These Policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure new
development integrates well with, and does not adversely impact, the transport
network and provides appropriate and effective vehicle and cycle parking
arrangements. I also find no conflict with the Framework in this regard, which
states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways
grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the
residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.
Other considerations
60. The appellant considers there to be a compelling need to replace the existing
village hall, which it considers has come to the end of its useful life. They have
put forward a number of considerations that it suggests are benefits in support
of the proposal.
61. These benefits include, but are not limited to, the replacement of the existing
village hall, with a larger and more modern community facility that would
provide a greater amount of flexible space for existing and growing local
community needs; the provision of a development, which the appellant states
has overwhelming public support; the lack of suitable alternative facilities in
the vicinity of the site; increased parking provision, including the provision of
bicycle parking provision and improved accessibility to the village hall;
environmental gains, including management of the ancient woodland; and
economic gains through employment during construction.
62. The appellant makes reference to the accessibility and community benefits
arising from a replacement facility. It refers to research undertaken into local
needs and requirements, in terms of community facility provision for the
current and growing population of Little Chalfont. Reference is also made to the
development having a significant level of local support and that no suitable
alternative sites with sufficient parking exist in the locality.
63. A ‘Community Centre Justification Statement’, prepared by the Parish Council,
was submitted as part of the proposed development. This document is cross-
referenced throughout other documents submitted with both the planning
application and appeal. These documents include, but are not limited to, the
appellant’s Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement (titled
Justification Statement June 2018); their appeal statement of case and final
comments.
64. I have no doubt that a replacement facility would improve accessibility and
would result in community benefits. I am sympathetic to the desire of the
appellant to provide a village hall that is multi-functional and versatile to meet
the current and future needs of the community; and mindful that such a
proposal would be likely to attract local support. I also acknowledge that
searches for alternative sites and research into the requirements of a new
community facility may have taken place. However, there is no substantive or
quantifiable evidence before me that physically demonstrates this to be the
case. As such I afford only moderate weight to the level of local support; the
process that informed the community needs and justification as to the scale of
the proposed community centre; and alternative sites and options considered
and discounted.
65. In terms of economic benefits, such benefits would be provided through
construction related employment. However, such benefits would be modest and
short lived and thus a matter of limited weight.
66. Turning to habitat and ASNW issues, I have afforded significant weight to the
standing advice6 of Natural England in this regard. The approach in the
Framework is that harm to the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats
should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. Against all the
public benefits, outlined above, is the harm I have identified to the ASNW and
its habitat. These public benefits do not, either individually or cumulatively,
outweigh loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitat.
67. Additionally, as noted above, the adjoining ASNW is not within the control of
the appellant and it would not be reasonable to impose a Grampian condition.
In the absence of a compensation strategy, related to the loss or deterioration
of irreplaceable habitats, physically before me, I am not satisfied that the
proposed development would provide adequate mitigation in this regard. As
such, in regard to the habitat and ASNW issues, the public benefits and
mitigation measures outlined above attract no more than very limited weight.
68. I note Policy CS29 of the CS, which is part of the Council strategy to ensure
inclusiveness within the community. This policy contains a number of criteria,
which includes seeking to encourage the provision of community facilities in
areas of the District where there is an identified need. This criteria also states:
”An option would be to consider policy exceptions to encourage such facilities
to be provided.”
69. When reading the policy as a whole, including the pre-amble, it is clear to me
that the Council are seeking for communities to engage and identify their
needs, and then discuss them further with the Council, so the Council can
consider whether to introduce the necessary policy exemptions within a
6 Forestry Commission & Natural England standing advice - Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees:
protecting them from development, published 2014, updated 2018
subsequent Development Plan Document (DPD). Indeed, they refer to some
projects already having been included within the CS and further proposals
being made subject to the ‘Delivery DPD’. There is nothing before me to qualify
if the proposed development has been discussed with the Council in regard to
its inclusion within the ‘Delivery DPD’ or indeed the status of such a document.
Therefore, I afford this matter very limited weight.
70. The appellant also refers to the potential for the site to be released from the
Green Belt, as part of the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan, and
makes reference to a Green Belt assessment, entitled ‘Green Belt Assessment
Part 2 Draft Report’ (GBA) and ‘Green Belt Preferred Options Consultation’
dated October - December 2016) (GBPOC). Both documents were prepared by
Chiltern District Council and South Bucks District Council.
71. Whilst part of the appeal site is one possible site, considered as part of the GBA
and GBPOC to be released from the Green Belt, it is true to say that the whole
of the site currently lies within the Green Belt. I have no information before me
as to the current status of the emerging Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan.
Bearing this in mind, as well as the fact that the whole of the site currently lies
within the Green Belt, I give very limited weight to the potential release of part
of the site from the Green Belt designation at this time or the appellant’s
suggestion that there is a level of acceptance that the site is of little value in
Green Belt terms.
72. I conclude on whether or not the very special circumstances necessary to
justify the proposal exist in the Overall Planning Balance and Conclusions
section at the end of my decision.
Other matters
73. The appellant makes reference to a number of Listed Buildings within the
vicinity of the site and specifically refers to Snells Farmhouse, located some
250 metres to the south-west of the application site, and Loudhams Farmhouse
and an associated barn, located some 200 metres to the east of the application
site. They advise both are Grade II listed. The Council have made no comment
in regard to this matter.
74. Given the proximity of the proposal to the above listed buildings, the fact that
there is no direct line of sight and the nature of the development, I am
satisfied that the development would have a neutral impact on these listed
buildings, thus preserving them and their setting. For these reasons, I conclude
that the proposal would accord with the conservation requirements of Chapter
16 of the Framework.
75. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to a number of other appeal
decisions and decisions made by the Council where they related to
development within the Green Belt.
76. In terms of the appeal related to the replacement scout hall7 in Kemsing, I note
that the increased floorspace and volumes of that building are substantially less
than those proposed in the development subject to this appeal. I also note that
the Inspector considering that appeal did not consider that the appeal proposal
would appear visually intrusive or overly dominant and felt that it would
7 Appeal Reference APP/G2245/A/12/2178731
integrate successfully with its landscaped setting. I have not found that to be
the case in this appeal.
77. In regard to the Effingham appeal8 I have only been provided with a copy of
the Secretary of State’s decision letter. I have not been provided with a copy of
the Planning Inspector’s report that informed the Secretary of State’s decision.
However, even in the absence of the Planning Inspector’s report it is clear that
the proposal before the Secretary of State was substantially different from the
appeal before me. Indeed, the benefits identified within that appeal scheme
and weighting applied to them differ to a significant degree from the appeal
before me.
78. I note the appellant’s reference to other Green Belt decisions made by the
Council, including the decisions related to the Audley Centre9; the scout hut in
Amersham; and the new community hall in Amersham. However, I have only
been provided with a copy of the Council’s Committee report related to the
Audley Centre and from the details provided it is again clear that the
development proposed, including its identified benefits and the weight applied
to them, substantially differed from the appeal before me.
79. From the information provided to me, I do not consider any of the appeals
highlighted or the Council’s decisions on other Green Belt proposals to be
directly comparable to the appeal before me. I consider the circumstances and
planning considerations related to those appeals, and Council decisions, differ
from the current proposal and I do not consider that they are directly relevant
to this appeal. I have attributed limited weight to these examples in my
determination of this appeal and have determined the proposed development
before me on its individual merits.
80. I have noted the appellant’s concerns about the Council’s consideration of their
planning application, including the content of the officer’s planning committee
report and alleged inconsistencies between that report and others on the same
agenda. This is a matter for the Council and I note that it was taken up directly
with them. Whilst I appreciate these concerns, in determining the appeal I
have only had regard to the planning merits of the case before me.
Overall Planning Balance and Conclusion
81. Policy GB2 of the LP, CS1 of the CS and Paragraph 143 of the Framework, set
out the general presumption against inappropriate development within the
Green Belt. I have found that the proposed development amounts to
inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including that it would cause
harm to openness. It would also conflict with at least one of the purposes of
the Green Belt, being the checking of the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up
areas.
82. National policy is clear, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to
the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special
circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green
Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to
the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly
outweighed by other considerations.
8 Appeal Reference APP/Y3615/W/16/3151098
9 Planning Application Reference: CH/2017/2258/FA
83. I have found harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area;
the ASNW, which is, in part, recognised for its irreplaceable habitat; and trees
protected by a TPO. Additionally, I have found that the proposal would be likely
to have a negative long-term effect upon the integrity of protected trees,
intended to be retained, that would lead to further erosion of the site’s
woodland character, the ASNW and would exacerbate the harm I have already
identified to the character and appearance of the area. These harms are other
harms for Green Belt purposes.
84. I attribute moderate weight to the public support; lack of suitable alternative
facilities and the wider community benefits arising from a replacement facility;
whilst I attribute neutral weight to the increased parking provision, including
the provision of bicycle parking provision and improved accessibility.
85. In regard to the Council’s Policy strategy to ensure inclusiveness within the
community, including the option to consider policy exemptions to encourage
the provision of community facilities (Policy CS29 of the CS), for the reasons
set out above, I afford this matter very limited weight. Additionally, I also
afford limited weight to the potential release of part of the site from the Green
Belt and the suggestion that there is a level of acceptance that the site is of
little value in Green Belt terms. I also afford very limited weight to
environmental gain, including management of the ancient woodland, as these
are limited and when measured against the public benefits and mitigation
measures identified, they would not outweigh the harm.
86. Even when taking all of the above matters cumulatively, they do not clearly
outweigh the totality of harm to the Green Belt and other harms identified
above. As such very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development
do not exist.
87. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that
applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with
the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have
found conflict with saved policies GB2, GC4, TW3 and TW6 of the LP and
Policies CS1, CS4, CS20, CS24 and CS32 of the CS and therefore consider that
the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.
88. The development is therefore unacceptable for the reasons set out above and
accordingly the appeal should be dismissed.
Christopher Butler
INSPECTOR


Costs Decision
Site visit made on 17 March 2020
by Christopher Butler BA(Hons) PG Dip TP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 04 June 2020
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/19/3228107
Little Chalfont Village Hall, Cokes Lane, Little Chalfont, Amersham,
Buckinghamshire HP7 9QB.
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Little Chalfont Parish Council for a partial award of costs
against Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area (Formerly Chiltern District Council).
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the demolition of existing
buildings, erection of two-storey community centre, alteration to existing access,
formation of new vehicular access and provision of cycle parking, car park, bin stores,
boundary treatment and landscaping.
Decision
1. The application for the award of costs is allowed in part in the terms set out
below.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, irrespective of the outcome of
the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary expense in the appeal process.
3. The appellant’s claim for an award of costs is made on substantive grounds
connected to the Council’s fourth and fifth reason for refusal, related to parking
and highways safety and ecology matters respectively.
4. Examples of unreasonable behaviour by local planning authorities include
failure to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal on appeal
and vague, generalised or inaccurate assertions about a proposal’s impact
which are unsupported by any objective analysis.1
Parking and highway safety
5. The Council points out that it is responsible for setting parking standards and
that the County Council, acting as Highway Authority, is only responsible for
assessing access and highway issues. However, the Council’s reason for refusal
on this matter, raised concern regarding the absence of evidence
demonstrating that a lower level of on-site parking in this locality would be
sufficient. As such it considered that the proposal would be likely to result in
the on-street parking of vehicles, which would result in danger and
inconvenience to users of the public highway.
1 Planning Practice Guidance - Appeals - Paragraph: 049 Reference ID: 16-049-20140306
6. I note the Council’s Officer report to its Planning Committee and its appeal
statement of case refer to the absence of locally based evidence. However, it is
clear to me that the Council’s concern ultimately amounted to a concern about
highway safety issues. As such, it was wholly appropriate for the Highway
Authority to comment on the application and provide advice on highways
issues.
7. Additionally, the appellant did submit evidence with the planning application in
the form of a Transport Assessment (TA). The Highway Authority were clearly
aware of the appellant’s evidence in their TA and when commenting on this
development they raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the imposition
of conditions.
8. The Council also question how closely the Highway Authority examined the
data submitted in the appellant’s TA. They also considered the data used to be
dated, questioned the sites chosen for analysis and whether they were
representative of the high car ownership levels in Little Chalfont and point to
the records used being for ad hoc days and not give a clear indication of
vehicular activity across a 7 day week.
9. Despite mounting these arguments, the Council has provided little, if any,
substantive or persuasive evidence that counters the appellant’s TA, including
any evidence that demonstrates that the data within it is flawed or that the
sites chosen for analysis were unrepresentative or incompatible with the appeal
site. Furthermore, bearing in mind chapter 9 of the Framework on promoting
sustainable transport, no persuasive evidence has been placed before me that
indicates the level of additional spaces, as sought by the Council, is defensible.
The development is sustainably located, close to residential areas and public
transport provision and as such I do not consider the level of on-site parking
provision sought by the Council to be justified on the evidence submitted.
10. Consequently, it has been demonstrated that there was unreasonable
behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense, as described in the PPG, by the
Council in respect of their failure to provide relevant evidence to support its
reason for refusal in respect of parking and highways. As a result, for the
reasons given, a partial award of costs on this matter is justified.
Ecology/Biodiversity matters
11. It can be seen from my decision that I have considered the appellant’s updated
Preliminary Ecological Appraisal. However, having considered all of the
evidence before me, including the standing advice of Natural England2 that
Ancient and Semi Natural Woodland (ASNW) is an irreplaceable habitat, I found
harm to irreplaceable habitat of an ASNW and that this harm was not
outweighed by the public benefits of the development. As such, I do not
consider that the Council acted unreasonably in regard to this matter.
Costs Order
12. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern Area shall pay to Little Chalfont Parish
2 Forestry Commission & Natural England standing advice - Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees:
protecting them from development, published 2014, updated 2018
Council, the costs of the appeal proceedings described in the heading of this
decision limited to those costs incurred in relation to the Council’s fourth reason
for refusal related to parking and highway matters; such costs to be assessed
in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
13. The applicant is now invited to submit to Buckinghamshire Council - Chiltern
Area, to whom a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with
a view to reaching agreement as to the amount.
Christopher Butler
INSPECTOR