Case Reference: 3262641

Appeal Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) Held on 16-19, 26 & 29 March 2021
Site Visit made on 31 March 2021
by Lesley Coffey BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21st June 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/W/20/3262641
Land at Lower Weybourne Lane, Badshot Lea, FARNHAM, GU9 9LQ
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Waverley Borough
Council.
• The application Ref WA/2019/1905, dated 15 November 2019, was refused by notice
dated 15 May 2020.
• The development proposed is Outline Application for residential development of up to
140 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Closing submissions were made in writing and the Inquiry was closed by letter
dated 20 April 2021.
3. The proposal is an outline application for up to 140 dwellings with all matters
except the access reserved for subsequent approval. The Appellant submitted
a plan showing how the development might be accommodated, but the plan is
for illustrative purposes only. Whilst there could be alternative layouts for the
site, the submitted plan nevertheless provides a useful guide when considering
the proposal before me.
4. The Appellant submitted an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 which covenants to provide affordable housing,
managed land and landscaping scheme, SAMM and SANG contributions, a
waste and recycling contribution, highway works, a Travel Plan, and Travel
vouchers. I have taken the planning obligations within this Agreement into
account in reaching my decision.
5. The parties submitted a Statement of Common Ground in respect of Planning
matters and topic specific Statements of Common Ground in relation to the 5
year housing land supply and Highway matters. On the basis of the Highways
Statement of Common Ground the Council withdrew the second and third
reasons for refusal, in relation to the impact of the proposal on the surrounding
highway network and the need to maximise sustainable transport. Interested
parties raised outstanding concerns in relation to highway matters and these
are addressed below.
6. Following the refusal of the application the appellant submitted SK-04 Drainage
Framework (preliminary drainage plan). The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA)
agree that this sets out how in principle surface water drainage might be
provided at the detailed planning stage. Subject to appropriate planning
conditions the Council no longer contests the fourth reason for refusal in
relation to surface water drainage. Notwithstanding this, a number of
interested parties remain concerned about the impact of flooding on the local
road network and I return to this matter below.
7. The Council confirmed that the fifth reason for refusal in relation to affordable
housing provision and the sixth reason for refusal in relation to the potential
adverse impact on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heath SPA were
addressed by the submitted s106 Agreement. Concerns in relation to the
impact of the proposed development on the SPA were raised by Councillor
Hyman and these are addressed below.
8. A previous planning application for 140 dwellings on the appeal site was
dismissed at appeal by the Secretary of State in March 2018.1 He concluded
that the proposal would have a moderate adverse impact on local landscape
character, resulting in conflict with Local Plan Policy RE1 and Neighbourhood
Plan Policy FNP10.
9. The SoS found that the provision of both affordable dwellings and market
provision carried substantial weight in favour of the proposal, that associated
economic benefits and environmental benefits carried moderate weight.
However, the conflict with Farnham Neighbourhood Plan policies carried very
substantial weight against the proposal, and the impact on coalescence
between Badshot Lea and Weybourne carried significant weight. He concluded
that there were no material considerations which indicated that the proposal
should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
10. The appeal scheme differs from this previous scheme in that it is an outline
application, rather than a detailed scheme, and it is for up to 140 dwellings.
The layout of the proposal as shown on the illustrative plans include areas of
landscaping to the front of the site and adjacent to the railway line. Although
the policy context is broadly similar, the revised Farnham Neighbourhood Plan
makes provision for additional housing allocations to reflect the requirement of
the Waverley Local Plan Part 1 and was adopted in April 2020.
Main Issues
11. I consider the main issues to be:
• The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of
the surrounding area;
• Whether the proposal would comply with the development plan, including
policies that seek to safeguard the countryside from inappropriate
development, prevent coalescence and maintain the separate identity of
Badshot Lea and Weybourne;
• The 5 year housing land supply position; and.
• The need for affordable housing
1 APP/R3650/W/15/313297
Reasons
Development Plan
12. The development plan for the area includes the Waverley Borough Local Plan
Part 1 2018 – Strategic Policies and Sites (February 2018) and the Farnham
Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2032 (April 2020).
13. Local Plan Policy SP1 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable
development within the Framework. Policy SP2 seeks to focus development at
the four main settlements which include Farnham. The supporting text
acknowledges that there is not enough suitable land for housing within existing
settlements to meet the need for new homes in Waverley. It explains that it
will be necessary to allow some expansion of settlements through the
development of suitable sites on the edges of settlements, with such expansion
focused on the main settlements. The parties agree that the proposal would
not conflict with Policy SP2.
14. Policy ALH1 sets out that the Council will make provision for at least 11,210
additional homes in the period from 2013 to 2032, including a minimum of
2,780 homes within Farnham.
15. The parties agree that the proposal would conflict with policies RE1 and RE3,
although they disagree as to the weight to be apportioned to this conflict.
Policy RE1 states that within the countryside beyond the Green Belt the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside will be recognised and
safeguarded in accordance with the NPPF.
16. Policy RE3 requires new development to respect and where appropriate,
enhance the distinctive character of the landscape in which it is located. It also
seeks to protect the Farnham/Aldershot Strategic Gap in which the appeal site
is situated. The accompanying text states that a much more focused policy will
be developed to safeguard the strategically important land separating Farnham
from Aldershot.
17. The detailed designation for this Gap is set out in emerging Local Plan Part 2.
Whilst the emerging Plan is at an early stage and carries limited weight the
appeal site does not come within the Gap as currently proposed within the
emerging Plan. I agree with the parties that there is no conflict with the
underlying aim of Policy RE3.
18. The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (FNP) was originally adopted in July 2017,
prior to the SoS decision. Following the adoption of the Local Plan the FNP was
revised in order to meet the housing requirement within the Local Plan and
provision was made for an additional 450 dwellings within Farnham.
19. Section 4 of the FNP sets out the strategy for Farnham. It explains that the
Built-Up Area Boundary for Farnham aims to enable development opportunities
within the town whilst protecting its rural setting and the surrounding
countryside from inappropriate development. It states that outside the revised
Built-Up Area Boundary, priority will be given to protecting the countryside
from inappropriate development and only limited development outside the
revised boundary will be permitted.
20. The aim of Policy FNP10 of the FNP is to safeguard the countryside from
inappropriate development. It states that outside the revised Built-Up Area
Boundary proposals will only be permitted where they comply with the
specified criteria. Criterion a) and e) are those most relevant to the appeal
proposal. Criterion a) requires proposals to be in accordance with Policies
FNP16, FNP17 and FNP20 in the Neighbourhood Plan or other relevant planning
policies applying to the area.
21. Consultation on the Draft Local Plan Part 2 (Regulation 19) version ended 29
January 2021. The plan is at an early stage in the adoption process and there
is no certainty the policies within it will be adopted. I therefore afford the
policies in it little weight.
Character and Appearance
22. The appeal site is a rectangular area of land with a relatively narrow frontage
to Lower Weybourne Lane. It is located towards the north eastern edge of
Farnham and together with the railway bridge and embankment it provides a
separation between Badshot Lea and Weybourne.
23. The site extends southwards towards Green Lane, although it is separated from
it by intervening land. To the east it is bound by the rear and flank boundaries
of the residential development at Glorney Mead and Badshot Park.
24. The site is predominantly used as rough pasture but includes a number of
derelict buildings and open storage uses towards the southern part of the site.
The site is visually contained with the main views being from Lower Weybourne
Lane, and more limited public views from Crown Lane.
25. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Weybourne Lane, is more open
in character, with the Sea Cadets site and Badshot Lea Big Pond.
26. The appeal site and surrounding area has been subject to a number of
landscape character assessments. These include the Surrey Landscape
Character Assessment (2015) and the Waverley Borough Council Landscape
Study – Part 1 Farnham and Cranleigh (2014). In addition, the Farnham
Landscape Character Assessment was published in August 2018 in order to
inform the update to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan.
27. At County Level, the Surrey Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site
as coming within character area RV8 Badshot River Valley Floor which includes
land on the opposite side of the railway line. The site has a number of
attributes associated with this classification, in particular the relatively low-
lying land, the rough pasture and the limited views associated with the site.
28. At Borough level, the Landscape Study was undertaken to consider landscape
sensitivity and capacity to inform the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan Part
1. It places the appeal site within area FN11B which includes the Sea Scout
site and Badshot Lea Big Lake opposite. This area is assessed as making a
medium contribution to the setting of the settlement, but having few landscape
qualities, limited visual prominence and intervisibility and low landscape
sensitivity. It noted that the area has some visual link with the settlement of
Badshot Lea and would not appear out of context with the adjacent land uses.
I consider this to be a reasonable assessment of the appeal site and its
immediate environs.
29. The most recent assessment is the Farnham Landscape Character Assessment.
This assesses the landscape on the basis of Parish Character Areas. These
areas are defined by recognisable landscape features. The appeal site,
together with open land to the north, south and west comes within PCA 17
which would appear to be largely defined by the existing highway network and
the built-up area boundaries. PCA17 as a whole includes a number of sports
facilities, as well as a mosaic of small fields in pasture, blocks of woodland,
areas of scrub, and allotments. The Assessment acknowledges that some of the
fields in pasture use are unmanaged and un-kempt and notes the role of the
site as providing the Strategic Gap between Farnham and Aldershot and
Badshot Lea and Weybourne.
30. It assesses both the landscape sensitivity and value of the landscape as
medium. It differs from the Landscape Study in that the character areas are
significantly larger and take in areas of housing and recreation as well as areas
of pasture. It includes the land on the opposite site of Lower Weybourne Lane
as well as land that extends as far as Weybourne Road to the east.
31. Although the findings of the Landscape Study were not taken forward by either
the Local Plan or the FNP in terms of allocations, this does not imply, as
suggested by the Council, that the judgements within it in terms of landscape
and sensitivity are not reliable. There is no substantive evidence to suggest
that it was undertaken in anything other than a professional and competent
manner. The difference in conclusions as to the value and sensitivity of the
landscape between the Landscape Study and the Farnham Landscape Character
Assessment is largely down to the scale of the area being assessed and the
purpose of both assessments. They both have value, but in my view the
Landscape Study better reflects the characteristics of the appeal site.
32. Based on the illustrative plans the proposal would comprise a mixture of
detached, semi-detached, and terraced properties, alongside associated
garages, new access, road layout, footpaths, landscape structure and public
open space. The proposed access would be from Lower Weybourne Lane with a
secondary pedestrian link to Badshot Park to the east. The proposed dwellings
would be predominantly 2 storey in height. The illustrative plans show a green
corridor/linear park adjacent to the railway and a landscape buffer to the front
of the site. It is intended that the proposed dwellings would be consistent with
those at Glorney Mead and Badshot Park in terms of scale and appearance.
33. As noted by the Inspector at the time of the previous appeal, although the site
comprises greenfield land and is rural in character, the appeal site has no
formal designation in relation to landscape quality, contains few specific
notable landscape features, and accommodates no formal public rights of way2.
34. I agree with the Council that the proposal would result in a fundamental
change in the character of the site from semi-rural to urban. However, as
noted by the Landscape Study it is a relatively enclosed site and most views
would be over a fairly short distance. Although the site would be seen in
longer views from Crown Lane, such views would be filtered by existing
vegetation even in winter months and would not appear incongruous. I
consider that an appropriately designed landscape scheme would further
diminish such views. The proposed development would be visible from other
limited viewpoints in the locality, but due to the distance and intervening
vegetation it would not be unduly prominent.
2 CD 10.1 Para 112
35. The railway bridge and mature trees adjacent to the railway line limit the
extent of views when approaching the site from the west (Weybourne). The
open nature of the frontage of the site is noticeable in this direction and
contributes to the visual break between the two settlements. However,
provided the dwellings are set back by an appropriate distance as indicated on
the illustrative plans, I see no reason why this openness cannot be maintained.
Although this area would be crossed by the proposed road and footpath, I do
not consider that it would significantly diminish the visual break provided by
the landscaped corridor. Slightly longer views are available when travelling
from the east of Glorney Mead, but these are also confined to the frontage of
the site and any harm would be limited.
36. Design and appearance are Reserved Matters, and on the basis of the
submitted information I am satisfied that the proposed development would not
be inconsistent with the existing dwellings at Badshot Park and Glorney Mead.
The proposal has the potential to deliver an attractive urban edge to Badshot
Lea replacing the present disparate piecemeal boundary that currently
dominates and detracts from the setting of Badshot Lea. The landscape buffer
and landscape corridor have the potential to form an attractive feature in views
form Lower Weybourne Lane.
37. Balanced against this, the proposal would change the rural character of the
appeal site and replace it with an urbanised appearance. Although views would
be localised, and the harm to the character and appearance of the wider area
limited, the proposal would nonetheless fail to protect the countryside from
inappropriate development as required by Policy FNP10.
Badshot Lea/Weybourne
38. Amongst other matters Policy FNP11 seeks to prevent coalescence between
Badshot Lea and Weybourne. It states that proposals which either fail to
demonstrate that these impacts can be satisfactorily addressed or which clearly
lead to the increased coalescence of settlements within the Plan area and
beyond will not be supported. The accompanying text states that residents of
these areas are keen to ensure the retention of the separate identity of these
areas. It notes that the appeal site breaks the built-up frontage of the two
settlements and has an important role in separating these two areas. The FNP
states that the target for Policy FNP11 is no new buildings outside of the Built-
Up Area Boundary as defined in the Neighbourhood Plan.
39. In the context of the previous appeal the Secretary of State found that
although the specific site characteristics would significantly mitigate the
particular local impact, the loss of open land between the two settlements and
the physical distance on the ground between built development in Badshot Lea
and Weybourne would be reduced, and as such would conflict with Policy
FNP11, and this matter carried significant weight against the proposal.
40. The current proposal differs from that considered by the SoS in that it
illustrates how a gap could be maintained between the two settlements by
providing a buffer along the western boundary and frontage of the site, and as
acknowledged by the FNP, the railway line has an important role in defining the
separation of the two settlements. Together these would assist with mitigating
the extent of coalescence between the settlements. Notwithstanding this, the
limited physical separation between the two settlements would still be reduced
and therefore the proposal would lead to increased coalescence between the
settlements contrary to Policy FNP11.
41. The proposal is located outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary of the FNP and
therefore falls to be assessed against criterion a) and e) of FNP10. The
appellant considers that since the proposal does not conflict with SP2 which is a
strategic policy criterion a) is satisfied and that the non-strategic policies of the
FNP cannot take precedence over it. The Council’s position is that due to the
conflict with Local Plan policies RE1 and RE3 and FNP Policy FNP11 the proposal
is in conflict with criterion a). Whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s view with
regard to the precedence of strategic policies over non-strategic policies, in this
case no conflict between the strategic and non-strategic policies has been
identified. Indeed, as confirmed by the Framework, the tests of soundness
applied to non-strategic policies takes into account the extent to which they are
consistent with relevant strategic policies for the area. Therefore, in the light of
the acknowledged conflict with RE1, RE3 and FNP11, I consider that the
proposal would fail to satisfy criterion a).
42. Criterion e) requires proposals to enhance the landscape value of the
countryside and, where new planting is involved, use appropriate native
species. Whilst it would be possible to use native species, and I am satisfied
that an attractive well-designed scheme could be delivered on the site, it would
not enhance the landscape value of the countryside. Therefore the proposal
would fail to comply with Policy FNP10 as a whole.
Housing Land Supply
43. The parties agree that the five year housing requirement, including a 5% buffer
and the shortfall equates to 4,811 dwellings (962dpa). By the close of the
Inquiry the Council’s position was that it had a 4.99 year supply of housing
land, whilst the appellant’s position was that the housing land supply was 3.78
years. This equates to a difference of 1,166 dwellings.
44. The main differences related to a number of sites where the delivery was
disputed, but the parties also differed in terms of their approach to
deliverability, the need for a lapse rate, and the windfall allowance.
45. In order to assess the deliverability of individual sites the Council contacted
landowners and developers for information about completion rates for their
sites, and also asked them to identify any issues that may affect delivery rates.
This information was compared with the delivery rates set out in the Supply
and Housing Trajectory Contextual Note (May 2017) (The Troy Planning Note).
For the sites where the Council did not receive any evidence from the
landowner or developer, the Council used the Troy Planning Note as a starting
point for identifying the number of dwellings that could be completed per year.
46. The Council consider that the Troy Planning Note provides a useful framework
in that it was prepared by consultants for the Local Plan examination and is
locally focussed, reflects the size of sites within Waverley and takes account of
a range of other research. It provides a framework of assumptions regarding
the delivery rates of sites expected to contribute towards the Council’s Housing
Land Supply, including lead-in and delivery periods and delivery and build
rates. However, the anticipated rates have not been tested against delivery
and are not based on empirical evidence within Waverley. The Council
acknowledge that the Troy Planning Note could be clearer as regards the
evidence on which it is based.
47. The appellants consider the figures within the Lichfield ‘Start to Finish’ Report
to be more reliable. It is based on nationwide empirical data. In general it
suggests lower maximum delivery rates than those assumed by the Troy
Planning Note, although in some instances, dependant on the size of the site,
rates are comparable. However, it does not take account regional or local
variations and tends to focus on larger sites.
48. The housing trajectory within the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply
Position Statement has relied on the Troy Planning Note. A comparison of the
trajectories within previous year AMRs and number of dwellings delivered
indicated that since the adoption of the Local Plan average completions have
been about 24% less that predicted. This suggests that the Council’s reliance
on the Troy Planning Note has significantly over-estimated housing land supply
within Waverley. I therefore prefer the evidence within the Lichfield Report
since it is based on empirical evidence that has been referenced within.
Lapse Rate
49. The appellant suggests that a lapse rate of 10% should be applied to all
outstanding permissions for small and medium sites. The appellant states that
the Council previously accepted a lapse/flexibility rate of 10% through the
Local Plan Examination process.
50. The Local Plan Inspector found that there is no requirement in the Framework
to apply a blanket discount and that sites with planning permission should be
considered deliverable unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be
implemented within 5 years.3 I share this view and given the more rigorous
approach to the assessment of deliverability within the current Framework,
consider that there is no substantive evidence to support a lapse rate as
suggested by the appellant.
Windfalls
51. The Council’s housing land supply includes 144 dwellings over the five year
period. This is based on an average rate of 72 dpa over the past 17 years.
The appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that such
rates are realistic going forward. However, I note that this figure is similar to
the most recent two to three years’ worth of data, and having regard to the
potential for changes to permitted development rights which make it easier for
existing buildings to be converted to residential use I consider the windfall
allowance to be realistic.
Disputed sites
52. The Council assessed the housing land supply position in accordance with the
definition of deliverability within the Framework.
53. The appellant disputes the delivery from 3 major sites, The Woolmead,
Dunsfold Park and Land at Milford Golf Course, as well as a number of other
smaller sites.
3 CD 4.5 para 46
The Woolmead
54. Planning permission was granted in October 2018 for 138 dwellings together
with 3,695 sq m of commercial floorspace. Due to viability considerations, the
proposal did not include any provision for affordable housing. An application
was submitted in January 2020 to reduce the size of the basement and the
number of parking spaces proposed. I understand that in all other respects the
proposal was essentially unchanged. The purpose of the application was to
reduce the build costs and promote the delivery of the scheme. Planning
permission was refused by the Council, and an appeal has been lodged against
the Council’s decision.
55. The Council believe that the site will deliver 138 dwellings in the five year
period ending March 2025, whereas the appellant considers that no dwellings
are likely to be delivered within this period.
56. The site currently benefits from a detailed planning permission, but on the
basis of this permission, it would not meet the test of deliverability since it is
evident that there are issues with viability. However, given that the developer
has submitted a revised planning application and a subsequent appeal, and
that the more recent scheme differs from that permitted only in terms of the
size of the basement and the car parking proposed, I consider that this shows a
clear intention on the part of the developer to progress the scheme. Whilst I
appreciate that the outcome of the appeal is uncertain, I nevertheless consider
that there is a realistic prospect that completion will begin on site in the five
year period up to 2025.
57. Given that the proposal is for a mixed-use development with flats located on
the upper floors, I consider the Council’s trajectory to be overly optimistic. In
my view it is unlikely that any flats will be delivered on the site before
2022/2023 at the earliest. In addition, the delivery rate of 64 dpa would
appear to be based on the rate within the Troy Note, which includes the
delivery of affordable housing and this does not form any part of the proposal.
I consider that the delivery rate of 55 dpa within the Lichfield Report to be
more credible. Notwithstanding this, I consider that there is sufficient evidence
to conclude that 138 dwellings could be delivered on this site in the five year
period.
Dunsfold Park
58. Dunsfold Park is an allocated site within the Local Plan for 2,600 dwellings over
the plan period. There is a hybrid planning permission granted at appeal for
1,800 dwellings. In addition to the dwellings the outline scheme includes care
home accommodation, a local centre, business floorspace , a health centre and
community centre, a two form entry primary school and open space. The full
permission relates to the demolition of some of the existing buildings, as well
as the retention and re-use of others.
59. The Council suggest that 445 dwellings would be delivered over the 5 year
period commencing in 2022/23. In support of this position it relies on the
Statement of Common Ground with the developer completed in July 2020 and
a Planning Performance Agreement. Since then reserved matters in relation to
the access road have been submitted, and a number of pre-commencement
conditions in relation to infrastructure have been discharged.
60. The appellant’s position is that delivery is unlikely to start until 2023/24 and
only 130 dwellings will be delivered in the 5 year period.
61. At the present time Reserved Matters for housing have not yet been submitted.
Whilst I note the housing projections within the Statement of Common Ground
between the Council and the Developer, the timetable set out there has slipped
by at least a year.
62. A development of this scale will clearly have triggers either within the planning
conditions or the planning obligations to ensure the provision of infrastructure
in a timely manner. The Council submitted a schedule showing some of these
triggers. Prior to the occupation of the 400th dwelling the first form entry and
first nursery room should be completed. No evidence was submitted to
suggest that RM matters for the primary school have been submitted or even
discussed with the Council. Once submitted the primary school would need to
be approved and constructed. Therefore in the absence of RM for either the
housing or the Primary School the prospect of delivering 445 dwellings on this
site within the 5 year period would not appear to be realistic or achievable. In
terms of other triggers for infrastructure it would seem that considerable work
is necessary to enable even this level of housing to be delivered. Therefore on
the basis of the submitted evidence I am doubtful that the site meets the
definition of deliverable within the Framework, and I find even the appellant’s
much lower trajectory to be optimistic. Based on the information available to
the Inquiry, I conclude that the appellant’s trajectory for this site is more
realistic. Consequently, the number of dwellings to be delivered in the five year
period from this site should be reduced by 325 dwellings compared to the
Council’s trajectory.
Land Opposite Milford Golf Course
63. The s ite benefits from outline planning permission granted in 2019 for 177
dwellings. A reserved matters application submitted in June 2019 remains
outstanding. The Council expects all 177 dwellings to be delivered by the end
of the 5 year period, whilst the appellant’s position is that none of the dwellings
will be delivered. At the time of the Inquiry the Council anticipated revised
plans would be submitted within the next few weeks.
64. Evidence submitted to the Local Plan Part 2 Allocation and Development Plan
Policies Examination states that there is a restrictive covenant on the site that
limits density to one dwelling per acre. Moreover, it is stated that the current
owner of the site has conceded the validity of the restrictive covenant and
made no application to vary or discharge it. The beneficiary of the covenant
has stated that he has no intention of relinquishing it. On this basis it seems
that the planning permission could not be implemented at the present time
even if the reserved matters were approved. I appreciate that the situation
may change in the future, however at the present time I am not persuaded
that this site is deliverable, or will contribute to the housing land supply in the
next 5 years. I therefore agree with the appellant that 176 dwellings should be
removed from the Councils housing land supply.
65. On the basis of these three sites I conclude that the Council’s housing land
supply should be reduced by 501 dwellings.4
4 325 + 176
Other sites
66. There are a number of other outstanding sites, where the differences between
the parties amount to 308 dwellings across 12 sites.
67. As set out in the Framework, where a site has outline planning permission for
major development, has been allocated in a development plan, has a grant of
permission in principle, or is identified on a brownfield register, it should only
be considered deliverable where there is clear evidence that housing
completions will begin on site within five years.
68. In the case of some of these sites, there is no clear evidence to indicate that
they will come forward in the next five years. The Council largely relies on the
delivery timescales within the Troy Planning Note, this falls far short of the
evidence required by the Framework. These sites include Firethorn Farm (49
dwellings), Cobgates (40 dwellings), Barons of Hindhead (38 dwellings), Wey
Hill (34 dwellings), Former Care Home Cranleigh (18 dwellings) and Land at
Waverley’s Folly (22 dwellings). In the absence of clear evidence that these
sites are likely to come forward the 201 dwellings that these sites would deliver
should be removed from the five year housing land supply.
69. In other instances, the difference between the parties relates to the delivery
rate. On the basis of the available evidence, I consider the housing land supply
is likely to lie about mid-way between the parties respective positions at about
4.26 years.
Affordable Housing
70. The Council agree that there is a current and pressing need for affordable
housing within Waverley. The West Surrey SHMA 2015 indicates a need for 314
affordable homes a year in Waverley between 2013 to 2033, and 111 in
Farnham over the same period. As acknowledged by the Local Plan there would
need to be a considerable uplift in housing in order to deliver the number of
affordable houses required. The Local Plan Inspector concluded that it would
not be realistic to expect the level of housing delivery necessary to meet this
need.
71. So far over the Plan period 547 affordable dwellings have been delivered.
Based on the affordable housing need within the SHMA this amounts to a
shortfall of 1,753 dwellings. The Council submit that when assessed on the
basis of 30% of the OAN then the Affordable Housing need would fall to 149
dpa and the shortfall in the delivery would fall to 598. The shortfall in housing
delivery has impacted on the delivery of affordable housing whereby an
average of 78 affordable dpa are provided. When losses due to Right to Buy
are taken into account the delivery rate falls to about 64 affordable dpa. This
fall well short of even the lower affordable housing figure put forward by the
Council.
72. The Council are taking a number of other steps to secure affordable housing
within Waverley. These include some sites delivering a greater proportion of
affordable housing, land-led delivery and the Council’s own building
programme. The Council submitted details of four sites in the Borough where
affordable housing provision exceeds the level required by the planning
permission. Together these would provide 137 additional affordable dwellings
which is a considerable uplift and demonstrates the Council’s commitment to
securing affordable housing within Waverley.
73. Nevertheless, there remains a significant shortfall and even on the basis of the
OAN figure there would need to be a significant increase in affordable housing
in order to meet this need including the shortfall. Notwithstanding the efforts of
the Council, it is clear that there remains a considerable and urgent need for
affordable housing within Waverley. Even if the reduced figure may be a more
realistic target the number of households in need of affordable housing
considerably exceeds it. The appeal proposal would provide 40% affordable
housing as against the policy requirement of 30%. The 56 dwellings that
would be delivered would make a significant addition to the affordable housing
stock and would be of benefit to those in housing need. I afford this very
significant weight.
Other Matters
Flooding
74. Interested parties raised concerns regarding the perceived location of the site
within Flood zone 2 (FZ2); surface water flooding beneath the railway bridge
on Lower Weybourne Lane; and that the drainage (SUDS) of the proposed
development would not meet the appropriate standards.
75. The Environment Agency and the Council’s flood risk consultants reviewed the
boundary and confirm that the site comes within FZ1.
76. It is evident that surface water flooding occurs on Lower Weybourne Lane.
This arises because the carriageway level was been lowered at the railway
bridge to allow high vehicles to pass under the bridge. The carriageway levels
on the immediate approaches to the bridge are inherently tied to the road level
beneath the bridge span. The appeal site rises southwards above and away
from Lower Weybourne Lane and therefore would not be at risk of flooding
from it. On the basis of the submitted information the LLFA is satisfied that
the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding or give rise to
flooding elsewhere.
77. Although the LLFA originally objected to the proposal, on the basis of additional
information it is satisfied that the storage volume and rate of surface water
runoff from the appeal site would not increase the flood risk on the site and
surrounding area.
Highway Issues
78. The Transport Statement of Common Ground confirms that the proposal would
provide a safe and suitable vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access to the site in
the form of a simple priority junction onto Lower Weybourne Lane. Surrey
County Council and Waverley Borough Council are satisfied that the agreed
package of highway improvement works and contributions secured by the s106
would ensure the residual cumulative traffic impacts fall short of the threshold
of severe identified by the Framework as the trigger level necessary to prevent
development coming forward. On the basis of the information submitted to the
Inquiry, I have no reason to take a different view.
79. The proposal would include a separate pedestrian and cycle access link to
Badshot Park. This would also include an emergency vehicular access. It was
suggested by interested parties that this route would not link to other routes
and that the surrounding roads are unsuitable for cycling. The route would
provide a traffic free link between Badshot Park and Weybourne. There are a
range of facilities within comfortable walking distance of the appeal site and the
proposed link would enable access to many of these facilities without the need
for residents to use their cars.
80. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposal would provide suitable
cycle links and there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the roads in
the vicinity of the appeal site would be inherently unsuitable for cycling.
81. Concerns were also raised as to how the emergency access would be used and
managed. It was explained at the Inquiry that it would only be used at times
when Lower Weyburn Lane was flooded to a depth that made it unsuitable for
vehicular traffic. It is proposed to place bollards at the entrance to Badshot
Park and these would be managed by the Highway Authority to avoid misuse.
82. It was also questioned whether the proposal would secure all of the pedestrian
improvements along Lower Weybourne Lane put forward by the appellant. The
proposed improvements were sought by the Highway Authority, whilst it may
be necessary to make adjustments in some specific locations due to the extent
of the available land and carriageway, that does not detract from the
significant improvements provided by the proposal.
Thames Basin Heath SPA
83. The Appeal site lies within the 400m to 5km Zone of Influence for the Thames
Basin Heath SPA. European and national legislation requires that ‘any plan or
project’ should not give rise to any likely significant effect upon these areas. In
order to avoid any likely significant effect, proposals for development are
required to demonstrate that they can avoid or mitigate any such effect. The
proposal in combination with other projects has the potential to affect the
integrity of the TBHSPA as a result of increased recreational pressures that
would arise out of the increase in the local population. Natural England raised
no objection to the proposal, subject to securing the appropriate contributions
via a S106 agreement.
84. In accordance with Policy NE3 of the Local Plan Part 1, FNP12 of the Farnham
Neighbourhood Plan, saved policy NRM6 of the South East Regional Plan and
the Thames Basin Heath SPA Strategy, a financial contribution towards the
upkeep SANG and SAMM is required to mitigate the impacts on the SPA.
Between them, and along with section 15 of the Framework, these policies set
out that planning permission will only be granted for development where it can
be demonstrated that doing so would not give rise to adverse effects on the
ecological integrity of the TBHSPA, whether alone or in combination with other
development.
85. The submitted s106 Agreement includes contributions to the maintenance,
improvement and operation of the Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space
(SANG) at Farnham Park in accordance with the Council’s adopted Special
Protection Area Avoidance Strategy (November 2018). The Council and the
appellant agree that subject to the mitigation proposed the appeal scheme
would not give rise to adverse effects on the TBHSPA. They also agree that it
is outside of the Zone of Influence for the Wealden Heaths SPA.
86. At the Inquiry Councillor Hyman raised a number of concerns about the
potential of the proposal to impact on the TBHSPA and the Wealden Heath SPA.
He disputes the distance of the sites from the SPAs, whether there was
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation would be
effective and the correct methodology for an Appropriate Assessment. The
distances suggested by Councillor Hyman would still mean that the site is
within the Zone of Influence for the TBHSPA and outside that for the Wealden
Heath SPA. At the time of the application the Council undertook an Appropriate
Assessment, Natural England was consulted and raised no objection, subject to
the measures within the Avoidance Strategy being secured. Evidence
submitted by the Council and the appellant would appear to support this
conclusion.
87. Councillor Hyman considers that the SANG and SAMM are potentially self-
conflicting in that the availability of the SANG could give rise to increased levels
of dog ownership with a consequential increase in visits to the SPA. There
appears to be little evidence to support this view, however, were I minded to
allow the appeal, I would need to undertake an Appropriate Assessment and
weigh the available evidence to reach a conclusion as to whether the proposal
would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.
88. In the light of my conclusions on the other main issues I have not conducted a
detailed appropriate assessment as required under the Habitat Regulations
since the harm arising from these other issues would not be reduced by the
proposed mitigation.
Planning Balance
89. It is agreed by the parties that although the proposal conflicts with Local Plan
policy RE3 due to the location of the site within the Farnham/Aldershot Gap,
given the intention to refine this boundary in the Local Plan Part 2 there is no
conflict with the underlying aim of RE3.
90. I have found that although views of the proposed development would be
localised, and the harm to the character and appearance of the wider area
would be limited, the proposal would nonetheless fail to protect the countryside
from inappropriate development as required by Local Plan Policy RE1 and FNP
Policy FNP10. The proposal would lead to increased coalescence between
Badshot Lea and Weybourne contrary to policy FNP11 and I afford this harm
moderate weight.
91. It would also fail to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside and would not accord with the strategy within the FNP which seeks
to direct development to locations within the Built-Up Area Boundary and
safeguard the countryside from inappropriate development. Policy FNP10 is out
of date due to the absence of a five year housing land supply, however, it is
consistent with paragraph 170 b) of the Framework.
92. The supporting text to Local Plan Policy SP2 states that in order to meet the
housing requirement it will be necessary to allow some development of suitable
sites on the edges of settlements. Whilst it is accepted that the proposal would
not conflict with Policy SP2, the non-strategic policies for Farnham are set out
in the FNP. The FNP was tested at examination and found to be sound. In
respect of Farnham, Local Plan Policy AHL1 explains that the housing required
in addition to that with in the FNP 2017 will be allocated in Local Plan Part 2,
unless Farnham Town Council decides to commence an early review of the FNP.
An early review has been undertaken and the FNP has identified sufficient sites
to meet the Local Plan housing requirement for Farnham.
93. As confirmed by the Framework the tests of soundness are applied to non-
strategic policies in a proportionate way, taking into account the extent to
which they are consistent with relevant strategic policies for the area.
Accordingly there is no evidence to suggest that the policies within the FNP are
inconsistent with or in conflict with Policy SP2 of the Local Plan since it makes
sufficient provision for the housing requirement identified by Policy AHL1.
94. I note the appellant’s criticism of two of the allocated sites that could
potentially remove 120 dwellings from the FNP housing land supply. However,
the FNP makes provision for 3,005 dwellings over the plan period, and
therefore even if these dwellings do not come forward there remains a
sufficient housing land supply to meet the minimum number of dwellings
required by the Local Plan within Farnham. Planning permissions and
allocations together account for 2,530 dwellings out of the 2,780 required by
the Local Plan.
95. The appellant also questioned the windfall allowance within the FNP. Councillor
Cockburn stated that the Examiner ‘grilled’ the Town Council on the supply of
windfall sites. Representations that the plan was overly reliant on windfall sites
were rejected by the Examiner. Since March 2018 planning permission has
been granted for 131 dwellings on small windfall sites. On this basis the
windfall allowance within the housing land supply and the housing requirement
would be achievable even if the disputed sites are removed.
96. The FNP was recently examined and found sound. I am therefore satisfied that
with more than 10 years remaining until the end of the plan period that the
FNP will deliver at least the number of dwellings required by the Local Plan and
may exceed the requirement. In these circumstances, I attach considerable
weight to the harm arising from the location of inappropriate development
within the countryside and the conflict with the strategy set out in the FNP,
including policy FNP10.
97. The proposal would deliver up to 140 dwellings of which 56 would be
affordable. The level of affordable housing proposed exceeds the policy
compliant 30%. The proposal would be consistent with the Framework in so
far as it seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes. Given the significant
need for Market and affordable housing within Waverley I accord considerable
weight to these benefits.
98. The proposed pedestrian and cycle links are necessary to mitigate the impacts
of the proposal, but they would nonetheless provide a benefit to the wider
population. I afford this moderate weight. There would also be short term
economic benefits during the construction period, and more long-term benefits
to the local economy due to the increased spending in the area and these
benefits are afforded moderate weight.
99. The site is well-located for local services and would allow residents to access
them without reliance on a private car, which attracts moderate weight. The
provision of new public open space also attracts moderate weight.
100. PPG is clear that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the
potential for the development to raise money for a local authority or other
government body. Accordingly whether a ‘local finance consideration’ is
material to a particular decision will depend on whether it could help to make
the development acceptable in planning terms. Therefore the revenue from
CIL, Council Tax and the New Homes Bonus does not add weight in favour of
the proposal.
101. Overall I conclude that whilst there would be some benefits from the
proposal, including the delivery of market and affordable housing, due to the
conflict with Policies RE1, FNP10, FNP11 and the strategy within the FNP the
proposal would not be in accordance with the Development Plan as a whole.
102. The parties agree that the appeal scheme would not offend any specific
policies in the Framework that protect specific areas or assets, and
consequently the policies in the Framework do not provide clear reasons to
refuse the proposal. Therefore, due to the absence of a five year housing land
supply paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. This provides that
where the most important policies for determining the application are out of
date planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing
so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed
against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.
103. Paragraph 14 of the Framework is also engaged, since it is less than 2 years
since the FNP was made; the FNP contains policies and allocations to meet its
identified housing requirement; there is in excess of a three year supply of
deliverable housing sites; and housing delivery within Waverley is at least 45%
of that required over the previous three years. In these circumstances the
Framework states that the adverse impact of allowing development that
conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits.
104. Paragraph 15 of the Framework sets out that planning should be genuinely
plan-led, and amongst other matters should provide a platform for local people
to shape their surroundings. The FNP has sought to do this. Granting planning
permission for a development that would so clearly conflict with the strategy
within a relatively recently made neighbourhood plan found to be in conformity
with the Local Plan would undermine the neighbourhood planning process and
the plan-led system as a whole, contrary to the policies within the Framework.
105. I find that the adverse impact of granting planning permission would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against
the policies within the Framework as a whole. Therefore I conclude that there
are no material considerations which indicate that the proposal should be
determined other than in accordance with the development plan.
Conclusion
106. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Lesley Coffey
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Stephen Morgan of Counsel
David Neame Neame Sutton Limited
Ben Wright Aspect Landscape (Landscape)
James Stacey Tetlow King (Affordable Housing)
Andy Traves Aquacallidus (Drainage)
Steve Jenkins i-Transport (Highways)
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Emma Dring of Counsel
Michelle Bolger CMLI, Dip LA, BA, PGCE, BA Landscape Consultant
Ruth Dovey MRTPI, BA, MSc Planning Officer
Katherine Dove MRTPI, MA Planning Officer (Housing land supply)
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Cliff Watts Badshot Lea Community Association
Councillor Jerry Hyman Waverley Borough Council
Councillor Caroline Cockburn Farnham Town Council
Jenny De Quervain Farnham Town Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
1. Local Planning Authority’s Opening Statement
2. Appellant’s Opening Statement
3. Councillor Hyman’s email dated 16 March and attachments
4. Tree Constraints Plan Submitted by the Council
5. Affordable Housing Note submitted by the Council
6. Pump House, Kimbers Lane email submitted by the Council
7. Technical Note TN02 Wastewater Pumping Station submitted by the
Appellant
8. Proposed access general arrangement Drawing No.6013-702 RevD
submitted by Appellant
9. Technical Note 001 Rev B Relationship of Access to Retained Oak Tree
submitted by the Appellant
10. Barons of Hindhead Site Note submitted by the Council
11. Updated Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground (25.03.21)
12. Note on Thames Basin Heaths and Wealden Heaths (Phases 1 & 2) Special
Protection Areas and appendices submitted jointly
13. I-Transport Technical Note regarding relationship of site access to retained
oak tree submitted by Appellant
14. Note on land at Wey Hill submitted by the Council
15. Cllr Jerry Hyman Further Note regarding SPA (26.03.21)
16. Updated Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground (25.03.21 v3)
17. Factual Update Note Dunsfold Park submitted by the Council
18. Email from Farnham Town Council dated 23 March 2021
19. Westbrook Mills Note submitted by the Council
20. Cllr Hyman submission dated 30 March 2021
21. Email dated 28 March regarding housing land supply and Farnham
Neighbourhood Plan on behalf of Cllr Cockburn
22. Updated Housing Land Supply Statement of Common Ground (01.04.21)
23. Email clarifying monitoring fee for Travel Plan submitted by the Council
24. Final Version of Draft conditions submitted jointly
25.
26. Executed S106 Agreement dated 1 April 2021
27. Closing submissions on behalf of the Council
28. Closing Submissions on behalf of the Appellant