Case Reference: 3265964

Appeal Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) held on 11 May 2021 and 20 to 23 September 2021
Site visit made on 28 September 2021
by M Philpott BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 5 November 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/20/3265964
Land off High View, Chalfont St Giles
• 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 – East Area (Chiltern)
• The application Ref PL/19/4421/FA, dated 18 December 2019, was refused by notice
dated 28 August 2020.
• The development proposed is erection of 42 affordable dwellings and associated access,
parking and landscaping.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by Buckinghamshire Council – East Area
(Chiltern) against [APPELLANT]. This application is the subject of a
separate decision.
Procedural Matters
3. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was revised on 20 July
2021. It replaces the version from 2019 that the Council took into account
when it determined the application. Through the appeal process, all parties
have been able to consider the implications of the current version of the
Framework and identify the policies most relevant to the issues in contention.
4. During the appeal, a revised drainage arrangement1 was submitted which
shows the relocation of borehole soakaways and an underground storage tank
within the appeal site. A corresponding site plan2 was also submitted.
Consultation on the revised arrangement was undertaken. An adequate
opportunity was provided for the Council and interested parties to consider and
make comments on the arrangement. Prejudice would not arise from my
consideration of the arrangement and thus I have taken it into account in
determining the appeal.
5. The Council confirmed that its second and third refusal reasons, which relate to
matters of biodiversity and the disposal of surface water, would be addressed
1 Drawing reference: 24731_01_010_02 Rev B
2 Drawing reference: P18-2331_13 Rev S
subject to the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) that was provided in
draft form at the Inquiry. A completed version of the UU was submitted
subsequently. The main issues identified below reflect the remaining areas of
dispute between the appellant and the Council.
6. The Inquiry was closed in writing on 28 September 2021.
Main Issues
7. The main issues are:
• whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant
development plan policies;
• the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the
purposes of including land within it; and
• if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances
required to justify the development.
Reasons
Inappropriate development
8. The site consists of approximately 2.38 hectares of undeveloped land within the
Green Belt and is adjacent to the settlement of Chalfont St Giles. The parish
within which the site is located shares its name with the settlement. The site
forms part of a grassed field with occasional trees within it. The remainder of
the field and hedgerows, trees and residential gardens are located along the
site’s boundaries.
9. Paragraph 147 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by
definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very
special circumstances. However, paragraph 149(f) of the Framework sets out
that an exception to inappropriate development includes limited affordable
housing for local community needs under policies set out in the development
plan, which includes policies for rural exception sites. The Framework refers to
rural exception sites as ‘small sites used for affordable housing in perpetuity
where sites would not normally be used for housing’. The appellant contends
that the proposal is not inappropriate development as it falls within the
paragraph 149(f) exception.
10. Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (CS) and Housing Policy 1
(Policy H1) of the Neighbourhood Plan for Chalfont St Giles Parish (NP) are
relevant to the paragraph 149(f) exception. These provide for proposals to be
permitted that would otherwise be inappropriate development; however, this is
subject to various criteria being satisfied.
11. The appellant alleges that CS Policy CS9 is inconsistent with the Framework
insofar as one of its criteria requires 100 percent affordable housing to be
provided, whereas the Framework offers more flexibility. However, the
Framework explains that a proportion of market homes may be allowed on
rural exception sites at the discretion of local planning authorities; it does not
state that rural exception sites policies must provide for market housing. I
consider that CS Policy CS9 is consistent with the Framework. In any event,
only affordable housing is proposed. As such, even if I had found the policy to
be inconsistent with the Framework in the way that the appellant claims, that
inconsistency would have limited relevance in the particular circumstances of
this case. It is not alleged that NP Policy H1 is inconsistent with the Framework
and there is no evidence suggesting otherwise.
12. In addition, Policy GB2 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (LP) states that most
development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and that there is a general
presumption against such development. It also includes exceptions to
inappropriate development, but none are comparable to the one at paragraph
149(f) of the Framework. The proposal therefore conflicts with LP Policy GB2,
albeit this conflict attracts limited weight given that the policy is inconsistent
with the Framework. CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1 are more important in the
determination of this appeal.
13. The Council contends that the proposal would be inappropriate development as
it would fail to satisfy several of the criteria of CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1.
These are considered under the sub-headings set out below.
Affordable housing need
14. Policy CS9 of the CS requires that there is an established need for the proposed
affordable housing and that the development is no greater than required to
meet current need. It also requires that the housing is provided for people with
strong and demonstrable local connections. NP Policy H1 echoes these criteria.
15. The NP provides a definition of ‘local connection’ in an appendix. In summary,
the term includes a person who has lived in the relevant area for not less than
5 years; lived in the relevant area immediately prior to the application and has
relatives who have lived there for not less than 5 years; has regular
employment there; or has moved from there in the past 5 years due to a lack
of suitable accommodation. ‘Relevant area’ is also defined. It refers to
qualifying persons from the parish, but also from neighbouring parishes and
beyond in a cascade arrangement. However, NP Policy H1 refers to people with
strong local connections to the parish of Chalfont St Giles specifically.
16. Accordingly, the Council’s interpretation is that there must be an established
need for people with strong and demonstrable local connections to Chalfont St
Giles for the proposal to accord with the requirements of NP Policy H1 and CS
Policy CS9. Furthermore, where persons living in the parish are identified as
needing affordable housing, it must be demonstrated that those persons have
lived in the parish, or have relatives who have lived there, for no less than 5
years for the proposal to comply with the development plan policies.
17. Clearly some criteria need to be applied to guide an assessment of whether
those in need have strong local connections. It would be difficult to justify
concluding that a person who has lived in Chalfont St Giles for only one or 2
years, and more so a person who has a relative who has lived there for that
length of time, has a strong local connection to the parish. However, it is
rational that someone would be more connected to the parish if they or
relatives have lived there for 5 or more years. Additionally, I note that the NP
refers to residential periods of no less than 5 years in defining local connections
and both development plan policies specify that ‘strong’ local connections
should be demonstrated. A compelling alternative to the Council’s
interpretation has not been advanced. For these reasons, I find that it is
appropriate to apply the policies in the way interpreted by the Council and that
is what I have done.
18. The appeal is supported by a Housing Needs Survey (HNS) that intends to
quantify the level of affordable housing need in the parish using a basic needs
assessment model. The HNS includes an assessment of household composition,
housing costs and affordability, and results from a survey of households within
the parish.
19. The appellant relies largely on a Good Practice Guide3 to support the
methodology for the HNS. Key principles of the Good Practice Guide, such as
expressing flows of affordable housing need, are reflected in the Planning
Practice Guidance (PPG)4, albeit the PPG makes no explicit reference to rural
exception sites in respect of need calculations. Nonetheless, the Good Practice
Guide is an appropriate source of guidance to inform the approach to
calculating need. Moreover, I do not doubt that the appellant engaged with the
Council in preparing the HNS prior to the survey being dispatched to
households and that Chalfont St Giles Parish Council were provided with an
opportunity to feed into the process.
20. The HNS clearly shows that Chalfont St Giles is a more expensive place to live
than the Chiltern area and the south-east of England, and many households
are unable to afford market housing in the parish. The Council accepts that the
affordable housing stock in Chalfont St Giles is relatively limited, no consented
schemes involve the delivery of affordable housing there, and no obvious sites
for affordable housing in the settlement currently exist. Additionally, no
affordable housing has been built there for the past several years. The NP
identifies the lack of affordable housing as one of its key issues, with its first
objective encouraging housing provision and emphasising affordable housing
delivery. There is also a limited stock of rental properties in Chalfont St Giles.
These factors indicate that there is a need for additional affordable housing in
the parish.
21. Further, the Council can only demonstrate 4.18 years supply of deliverable
housing sites. In addition, the Council must prepare an action plan because of
its latest Housing Delivery Test results. No timescale has been put forward for
the creation of a new local plan that might identify a strategy for addressing
the unmet housing needs in the Chiltern area.
22. The household survey was sent to every household in the parish. There was a
base response of 23 households in affordable housing need. From these
results, the HNS estimates a flow of need of 42 units of affordable housing per
annum. In part these outcomes are reached from crosstabulations of responses
to certain survey questions that are grossed up via weighting factors, which
differ depending on the age and tenure characteristics of the household
representatives to compensate for non-responses and address potential
underrepresentation of persons in need. There are 6 ‘sub-groups’ of households
in total, each with different weighting factors.
3 Local Housing Needs Assessment: A Guide to Good Practice, The Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions, February 2000
4 Principally the section entitled ‘Housing and economic needs assessment’
23. The Council has no objection in principle to the use of the HNS model and does
not dispute the sampling error for the overall survey. Nevertheless, the Council
argues that weighting and grossing up the survey responses to infer need for
the entire parish is statistically unsafe. This is on the basis that there may be
limited numbers of respondents in some sub-groups and therefore the
sampling errors for those sub-groups exceeds the one for the overall sample.
24. Neither the Good Practice Guide, nor guidance on which the Council relies from
the National Network of Rural Housing Enablers5, provide clear guidance on this
matter. However, the level of purported need and several other reported
outcomes are based on the processing of sub-group data. It is rational that the
base number of responses within a sub-group will affect the reliability of
inferences made about that sub-group at parish population level. Logically
there would be a greater likelihood of error in extrapolating need from one or a
very small base number of survey responses within a sub-group than if a large
number or nearly all that entire sub-group population responded to the survey,
such that the weighting factor is small relative to the sub-group’s size.
25. The base number of responses within each sub-group has not been provided.
In addition, the appellant’s housing need witness stated that few base
responses may be from households in some sub-groups. Therefore, I cannot be
certain that the weighted survey results reliably reflect the actual need for
affordable housing at parish population level.
26. Furthermore, the household survey asked whether respondents lived at their
address via multiple choice answers. The longest residency period that could be
selected was ‘over 3 years’. It did not ask for the location or length of
occupation of residents’ previous homes. Consequently, it is not possible to
ascertain how many of those in need have been resident in the parish for no
less than 5 years, or the duration of relatives’ residency in the parish. The
appellant’s housing need witness confirmed that it was not possible to
reasonably infer the length of residence from the other survey questions.
Moreover, the duration of the residency of the 23 households in need has not
been reported.
27. It is put forward that HNS methodologies are incapable of fully assessing
households with a strong local connection; however, the survey could have
asked the respondents to specify the precise length of time that they and their
relatives have lived in the parish. Furthermore, I cannot be sure that persons in
need have a strong local connection because of the passage of time since the
survey was undertaken. Objective evidence has not been provided to indicate
that there are large numbers of households in affordable housing need outside
Chalfont St Giles which seek to live there and have a strong local connection.
Additionally, there is no evidence of the levels of need from persons employed
in the parish.
28. Consequently, the HNS does not demonstrate that there are persons in
affordable housing need that have a strong local connection to the parish. I
acknowledge that there are housing affordability, supply and delivery issues in
Chalfont St Giles. However, even if I had found that the weighted survey
results are reliable, I would nevertheless be unable to conclude that affordable
housing need within the parish is such that there are likely to be 42 households
with strong local connections.
5 Producing robust and influential rural housing needs surveys
29. The appellant and the Council agree that multiple data sources should be
consulted to corroborate estimates of affordable housing need. In addition to
the survey to households, the main sources to which the parties refer are the
Council’s housing register, its HEDNA6, the existing stock of housing and
prevalence rates from the consultancy that prepared the appellant’s HNS.
30. Around 24 applicants living in the parish are listed on the Council’s housing
register. Putting aside the requirements of CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1,
factors such as the register’s eligibility criteria, the size of the existing
affordable and rental housing stock, potential preferences for home ownership
and affordability concerns will result in the register underestimating need. This
is indicated in the Good Practice Guide. Moreover, the register does not
represent a flow of households. The appellant has therefore adjusted the
register to an annual flow and included assumptions to account for newly
forming households and potential home ownership demand. The resulting gross
annual flow of households in need is similar to the weighted survey results.
31. However, the number of newly forming households is calculated using positive
formation rates taken from the English Housing Survey. Those rates also
influence the anticipated need for shared ownership units. Conversely, the
Council referred to Office for National Statistics data which indicates that there
was negative population change, and hence potentially negative household
formation, in the parish between 2011 and 2019.
32. Whilst I note that the PPG suggests the English Housing Survey as a data
source for calculating affordable housing need, a range of other sources,
including household projections, are also identified. The Good Practice Guide
states that new household formation should ideally be checked against past
rates and demographic estimates. It is likely that the use of district or parish
level data would enable more accurate need estimates to be calculated as
these would reflect the distinctive local housing market. As such, I am not
satisfied that the adjusted register data corroborates the weighted survey
results. In any case, the register only requires 2 years local connection to the
parish and thus the adjusted data does not reveal how many persons have
strong local connections for the purposes of CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1.
33. The HEDNA intends to inform policy at district level and differs in purpose and
methodology to the HNS. The main parties agree there is limited scope to use
the HEDNA to corroborate the survey results. I see no reason to find otherwise.
I have significant concerns with using the consultant’s prevalence rates to
estimate need as the figure produced via that method is based on several
assumptions from nationwide survey data, which are unlikely to accurately
reflect the specific characteristics of Chalfont St Giles. Additionally, given the
lack of housing delivery in the parish, inferring the level of need based on the
size of the existing housing stock would not be reliable either. The appellant
also references a housing needs survey initially undertaken by Chalfont St Giles
Parish Council in 2002. However, this cannot be relied upon as full details of
the survey have not been provided and a significant amount of time has passed
since it was undertaken. In any case, none of these sources reveal whether
strong local connections to the parish exist.
34. The UU seeks to secure the provision of the affordable housing. However, it
would enable an affordable housing unit to be allocated to a qualifying person
6 Chiltern and South Bucks Housing and Economic Needs Assessment 2019: Report of Findings, April 2019
with a local connection beyond the parish if a person is not nominated by the
Council and someone with a local connection to the parish cannot be found
within specific time periods. Consequently, the UU does not provide certainty
that the housing would only be occupied by persons with a strong local
connection to the parish specifically.
35. I note that the Council has not undertaken a HNS of its own or suggested what
the level of need might be in Chalfont St Giles; however, the onus is on the
appellant to demonstrate that need exists. Although the appellant’s housing
need consultant may have adopted similar approaches to surveying and
estimating need elsewhere, this does not imply that this particular proposal
complies with the relevant planning policies.
36. Overall, I am not satisfied that the weighted survey results or any of the other
sources of evidence of need reliably represent affordable housing need for
Chalfont St Giles as a whole. Moreover, the evidence does not demonstrate
that there is a need for 42 affordable homes for persons with strong local
connections to the parish. Consequently, the proposal conflicts with CS Policy
CS9 and NP Policy H1.
Scale of development
37. Policy CS9 of the CS requires the development to be ‘small-scale’. The term is
not defined by the CS, nor is ‘limited affordable housing’ defined for the
purposes of paragraph 149(f) of the Framework.
38. It may be reasonable to decide whether development is small-scale in absolute
terms where sites or quantities of housing are obviously very small or large.
However, the site and the amount of housing proposed in this case are such
that the scale of the development must be considered in some context.
Because CS Policy CS9 is concerned with development of land adjoining or
closely related to existing built-up areas, it is appropriate to consider the scale
of the development in relation to the adjoining settlement.
39. The appellant’s planning witness calculates that the development would
represent an increase in the number of dwellings in Chalfont St Giles by less
than 2 percent. In this respect the development would be small-scale.
Additionally, the development would be limited to one part of a single field. In
the context of the extent of the built-up areas of the settlement, as shown on
Map 2 in the NP, the proposal would constitute a small-scale addition. The
proposal thus complies with CS Policy CS9 insofar as it would be small-scale. It
also constitutes limited affordable housing for the purposes of paragraph 149(f)
of the Framework.
40. The Council and the appellant have referred to decisions to support their
stances in respect of this matter. However, those decisions are not directly
comparable to this appeal proposal as some relate to schemes outside the
Chiltern area and the Green Belt, and those from within the Chiltern area
involved markedly lower housing numbers. In any case, I do not know the
exact circumstances of any of the decisions referenced. Therefore, none lead
me to alter my findings.
Perpetuity
41. The housing must remain as affordable housing in perpetuity for the proposal
to comply with CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1. However, statutory rights
enshrined in legislation7 enable occupiers of affordable rented or shared
ownership units to acquire those properties in specific circumstances. Once
acquired, the properties would no longer constitute affordable housing. It is
undisputed that the statutory rights cannot be excluded by a legal contract and
those rights would enable the affordable housing in this case to be acquired.
42. The term ‘in perpetuity’ is not defined in the development plan or the
Framework. Both the Council and the appellant have made compelling
submissions on how the term should be interpreted and how the policy should
be applied. However, based on the above reasoning I conclude below that the
proposal constitutes inappropriate development. Therefore, this specific matter
is not determinative and does not need to be considered further in detail.
43. Notwithstanding this, the statutory rights have not resulted in significant losses
of affordable housing in the parish so far, and it is logical that affordability
issues will limit the capability of the occupiers to acquire the proposed housing.
Additionally, the UU gives the appellant the right of first refusal on the sale of
any units acquired by means of the statutory rights. As the appellant is a
housing association with an existing presence in Chalfont St Giles, whose
business is solely related to affordable housing provision and management,
there is some prospect that it would buy back acquired housing. I am also
mindful that the UU requires that the proceeds from the sale of the housing are
used for affordable housing elsewhere in the Council’s administrative area.
These factors all indicate that affordable housing would be retained in the
parish over a long period, even if the proposed housing would not be retained
‘in perpetuity’ in the strictest sense of the term.
Conclusion on inappropriate development
44. The proposal conflicts with CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1 as it has not been
demonstrated that there is an established need for the proposed housing, the
development would be no greater than required to meet current need, or the
housing would be provided for people with a strong local connection. In
addition, the proposal conflicts with LP Policy GB2 because it does not fall
within one of the policy’s exceptions to inappropriate development.
45. The development does not constitute limited affordable housing for local
community needs under policies set out in the development plan. Therefore,
the development does not fall within the exception to inappropriate
development at paragraph 149(f) of the Framework. No other exceptions are
relied upon by the appellant. The proposal thus constitutes inappropriate
development in the Green Belt.
Openness and purposes of the Green Belt
46. Paragraph 137 of the Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green
Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and
that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their
permanence.
47. Having regard to the amount and volume of the development proposed, which
includes mostly terraced and semi-detached 2 storey houses and a 2.5 storey
apartment building, there would be substantial harm to the openness of the
Green Belt spatially.
7 Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 and section 180 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008
48. The development would be evident in short distance views from the end of the
existing High View highway, residential properties near to the site and a public
right of way that extends away from the settlement. However, long distance
views of the development would be filtered by vegetation within and at the
site’s boundaries and beside the public right of way. There would be limited
visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt as a result.
49. The Green Belt’s extent cannot be altered through the approval of a planning
application. Furthermore, there can be no certainty that allowing this appeal
would lead to alterations to the Green Belt’s boundaries through any new local
plan. The permanence of the Green Belt would be unaffected in these terms.
50. Nevertheless, the Council contends that the permanence of the Green Belt
would be harmed as the field on which the development is proposed lacks
permanent and defensible boundaries. A Green Belt assessment8 of the field
from October 2016 supports the Council’s stance. However, the assessment
was prepared primarily to support policy making. Additionally, the appellant’s
evidence indicates that the hedgerow on the outer edge of the site furthest
from the settlement has some protection as an ‘important hedgerow’ for the
purposes of The Hedgerow Regulations 1997. In my view, the permanence of
the Green Belt would not be harmed by the development due to the presence
of residential properties and hedgerows at the boundaries of the field, which
provide the site and the proposal with a high degree of containment.
51. The appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment finds that the site
does not contribute strongly to the purposes of the Green Belt identified at
paragraph 138 of the Framework. Nevertheless, I consider that the site clearly
forms part of a network of fields surrounding the settlement and contributes
positively to the Green Belt’s purpose in assisting in safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment. Whilst there would be limited visual impacts
and a high degree of containment of the development, and open space and
landscaping on and adjacent to the site would be retained and is proposed, the
development would still erode the site’s undeveloped rural character and
encroach into the countryside. Consequently, there would be moderate harm to
the Green Belt purpose at paragraph 138(c) of the Framework.
52. The CS and NP describe Chalfont St Giles as a village. In addition, a Green Belt
assessment from March 20169 identifies Chalfont St Peter and Gerrards Cross
as a large built-up area, but not Chalfont St Giles. In this context, Chalfont St
Giles is not a large built-up area or a town for the purpose of assessing harm to
the Green Belt purposes at paragraph 138(a) and (b) of the Framework.
53. Nonetheless, even if the settlement was a large built-up area, sprawl would
continue to be checked because of the site’s containment. Additionally, if
Chalfont St Giles was deemed to be a town, substantial parts of the settlement
are currently closer to Chalfont St Peter than the scheme would be. Thus, the
development would not affect the proximity of the settlements. It would also
not result in the settlements being perceived as closer together from the public
right of way, due to the distance between the settlements and intervening
vegetation. I acknowledge that the Green Belt assessment from March 2016
identifies that the site is part of a land parcel which prevents spawl and
constitutes an essential gap between Chalfont St Giles and Chalfont St Peter.
8 Green Belt Assessment Part Two: Appendix 5, Volume 5, October 2016
9 Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment: Annex Report 1C
However, it does not compel me to alter my findings as the appraised land
parcel is substantially larger than, and does not discretely assess, the site.
54. Therefore, the proposal does not affect the Green Belt purposes identified at
paragraph 138(a) and (b) of the Framework, those being to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and prevent neighbouring towns
from merging into one another. Furthermore, based on the evidence before
me, there would be no harm to the purposes of the Green Belt identified at
paragraph 138(d) and (e) of the Framework.
55. In conclusion, there would be harm to the openness of the Green Belt that
would be substantial in spatial terms and limited in visual terms. Additionally,
there would be moderate harm to the purpose of the Green Belt to assist in
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
Other matters
Drainage and flooding
56. Neither the Lead Local Flood Authority nor the Environment Agency have
objected to the proposal on drainage or flooding grounds. The evidence
indicates that there would be a sufficient separation distance between the
drainage infrastructure and buildings. There is nothing indicating that land
outside the control of the appellant would need to be accessed or relied upon
for the arrangement to function or be maintained. Whilst further geotechnical
investigations would be required due to potential chalk solution features within
the site, there is a realistic prospect that the drainage scheme could be
implemented. The UU ensures that unfettered access to the drainage systems
would be gained when needed and that the systems would be managed and
maintained in an adequate condition.
57. The proposal would not result in unacceptable drainage impacts or increase
flood risk. In these respects, the proposal accords with CS Policy CS4. This
seeks to ensure that development has long term sustainability in accordance
with Table 1 of the CS, which sets out that regard should be had to drainage
impacts and reducing flood risk. The proposal also accords with paragraphs 167
and 169 of the Framework, which aim to reduce flood risk and encourage the
provision and ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage systems.
Ecology
58. Shrubs Wood is a Biological Notification Site which is located near the site.
However, there is no substantive evidence that it would be harmed in any
respect.
59. The application was supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and several
species surveys. The appraisal identifies that the site principally includes semi-
improved grassland, but the important hedgerow is the most ecologically
valuable feature. The hedgerow and the trees at the site’s boundaries are to be
retained and new landscaping is proposed including a pond. Improvements to
grassland and the creation of an orchard are also proposed off-site.
60. The UU secures the delivery of the off-site landscaping as part of a biodiversity
offsetting scheme which secures net gains of approximately 5 percent in
habitat units and around 75 percent in hedgerow units. Neither the
development plan nor the Framework set out that a specific level of biodiversity
net gain must be achieved and thus the proposal is acceptable in this respect.
The UU also secures the implementation of an Ecological Mitigation and
Enhancement Strategy that sets out construction controls and mitigation,
compensation and enhancement measures for a range of wildlife.
61. The badger surveys indicate that there is an outlier sett in the vicinity of the
site. However, the sett can remain in situ as it would be separated from the
built-up part of the site by a 20m buffer between the important hedgerow and
the proposed housing. If additional setts are discovered, there is a strong
likelihood that they will be protected by the buffer. The new landscaping and
orchard planting would increase the amount of foraging habitat. Hence, the
proposal would not be harmful to badgers.
62. Aerial inspections of the trees within the site reveal low potential to support
roosting bats, whilst transect surveys identified that most of the foraging and
community bat activity takes place along the site’s boundaries. The new
landscaping would also increase foraging and commuting opportunities. New
roosting features such as bat boxes are also proposed. For these reasons, and
due to the retention of the important hedgerow and the presence of the buffer
between it and the housing, the proposal would not harm bats.
63. In respect of great crested newts (GCN), negative environmental DNA (eDNA)
test results were received for water bodies surveyed in the vicinity of the site.
This indicates an absence of GCN in those water bodies. However, local
residents reported the presence of GCN in water bodies in the vicinity of the
site at 2 High View, Charwood and Briland. The Buckinghamshire and Milton
Keynes Environmental Records Centre has a record of GCN at the latter
property. For various reasons, including availability issues for the occupiers,
the Coronavirus pandemic and access being denied, the appellant’s ecological
consultants were unable to undertake eDNA testing at those 3 properties.
64. One of the negative eDNA results is from a water body near to Charwood and
Briland. Moreover, those properties are more than 100 metres from the built-
up part of the development. With reference to published research, the main
parties agree that the majority of GCN in their terrestrial phase are caught
within 50 metres of breeding ponds. Therefore, the proposal is unlikely to harm
any GCN at Charnwood, Briland or properties further from the site.
65. Given that 2 High View would be within 50 metres of the site, any GCN from
the water body there could be harmed by the development. However,
landscaping is proposed adjacent to the boundary with No 2, which would
separate the water body from construction work associated with the scheme.
Avoidance measures are proposed which would minimise construction impacts.
Further, the landscaping would connect to the important hedgerow, which is
valuable terrestrial habitat for GCN, and be contiguous with the pond and thus
breeding habitat. For these reasons the potential harm to GCN is limited and,
as attempts have been made to survey the water body at No 2, this should not
weigh against the scheme.
66. The appellant’s drainage expert explained that maintenance and repair of the
drainage system could be undertaken without significant impacts on the pond.
The ecologists for the main parties have no concerns regarding this matter. I
am satisfied that arrangements could be made to prevent harm to GCN or
other species that might use the pond if works to the drainage system were
required in the future. Moreover, firm evidence has not been provided which
suggests that other species would be harmed, protected or otherwise.
67. The proposal would not have a harmful effect on biodiversity. It accords with
CS Policy CS24, which requires that biodiversity is conserved and enhanced. It
also accords with paragraphs 8, 174 and 180 of the Framework, which set out
that the planning system should protect, conserve and enhance the natural
environment and minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. In
addition, there is no conflict with Circular 06/200510, which provides guidance
on laws relating to planning and nature conservation.
Highways and accessibility
68. High View is a cul-de-sac featuring a turning head with footways around it. The
site is accessed via carriageway and footways that extend beyond the turning
head. Access to existing properties is gained from the turning head. However,
drawings show that egress from those properties could be achieved in a
forward gear and that there would be adequate visibility splays. Moreover, as
low boundary walls are beside the footway beyond the turning head, there
would be good intervisibility between drivers and pedestrians.
69. Parking provision exceeds the standards set out by LP Policy TR16. Modelling
has been undertaken which indicates that there would not be unacceptable
impacts on the local highway network. The Highway Authority has not objected
to the appellant’s highway evidence and no comparable evidence to the
contrary has been provided. A condition would ensure that the construction
process would not result in significant highway impacts. The proposal would not
have a harmful effect on highway safety.
70. The centre of Chalfont St Giles is designated as a Local Centre by the LP. Many
of the requirements for daily life can be met by the amenities there. Pedestrian
access from the village centre to the site is achievable via a few routes. The
route via London Road and Stylecroft Road is less than one mile, sections of it
have street lighting and the footway widths are adequate. Stylecroft Road is
steep, but other roads on the route have gentler inclines. Improvements to
pedestrian crossing points and the provision and maintenance of rest features
on Stylecroft Road are secured by the UU. As such, there is a realistic prospect
of some residents walking to the village centre.
71. Further, there is a bus stop on London Road served by buses that travel to the
village centre as well as larger settlements. The bus routes operate Monday to
Saturday from morning to evening and thus many residents could rely on
buses for their journeys. The UU also requires contributions to be paid to the
Council for use in upgrading the bus stop and providing dial-a-ride services. A
travel plan is also secured, which would encourage the residents to choose
sustainable modes of transport. Hence, there would be realistic alternatives to
private motor vehicles for the occupiers of the development.
Further matters
72. The site is approximately 240 metres from the boundary of the Chiltern Hills
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Given this separation distance and
10 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - Statutory
Obligations and their Impacts within the Planning System
the presence of intervening vegetation, the proposal would not harm the AONB
or its setting.
73. High View and Stylecroft Road feature properties that are predominantly
detached, with some semi-detached dwellings evident. However, the size and
design of the housing in the vicinity otherwise varies. In addition, the scheme
would be relatively self-contained, which provides an opportunity for some
variation between its design and the surrounding housing. Notwithstanding the
impacts on the countryside already identified in respect of the Green Belt, the
development would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the
area or the landscape. A few trees are proposed to be removed from the site;
however, none are of significant value and the impacts from the loss of the
trees would be offset by the new landscaping.
74. The Council sets out that the proposed properties satisfy its relevant housing
standards. There would be sufficient distance between the existing and
proposed properties to ensure satisfactory living conditions for the occupiers in
terms of outlook, privacy, daylight and sunlight. Objective evidence has not
been presented which indicates that there would be unacceptable noise or
disturbance impacts from the development or associated vehicle movements.
75. Concerns have been raised that the development would lead to increased
pressure on local service provision. The Buckinghamshire Clinical
Commissioning Group has not provided substantive evidence that contributions
to healthcare services are necessary and spare capacity has been reported at
local schools. There is no compelling evidence that the development would
place undue pressure on local services.
76. Interested parties are also concerned that allowing the appeal would set a
precedent for similar development in and around the settlement and that a
further application for housing on the rest of the field would be submitted.
However, each application must be considered on its own merits and
generalised concerns of this nature do not indicate against the scheme.
77. In addition to the planning obligations already identified, the UU secures
management measures for the communal and open spaces within the site. I
am satisfied that these and the other obligations in the UU accord with the
statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations11 and the
tests set out at paragraph 57 of the Framework.
78. A Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) from 17 December 2015 identifies that
unmet need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt and any
other harm so as to establish very special circumstances. However, the
Framework has not subsequently incorporated the provisions of the WMS. In
addition, similar guidance in the PPG has been removed.
79. The Council has referenced a judgement12 to support its view that if the
Government had changed its Green Belt policy, there would have been a clear
statement setting that out. However, the judgement focused on whether
changes to policy could be inferred from the replacement of Planning Policy
Statement 2 with the first version of the Framework. As such, it is not directly
relevant to interpreting the status of the WMS. Decisions have been referred to
which show that different stances have been taken to ascribing weight to the
11 The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010
12 Redhill Aerodrome Limited v SSCLG & Others [2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin); [2014] EWCA Civ 1386
WMS; but the extent to which the weight of the WMS was assessed or disputed
in those cases is unclear, and several decisions pre-date the removal of the
guidance in the PPG. The WMS does not state unmet need is incapable of
clearly outweighing harm to Green Belt. Moreover, in my view, the removal of
the PPG guidance clearly indicates that limited weight should be attached to the
WMS. I have taken this into account below.
Other considerations and whether very special circumstances exist
80. Paragraph 148 of the Framework explains that very special circumstances to
justify development in the Green Belt will not exist unless the harm to the
Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from
the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
81. The proposed development would make a significant contribution to housing
supply generally and in terms of affordable housing specifically, in both the
parish and the wider Chiltern area. Significantly increasing housing supply is an
objective of the development plan and the Framework. Having regard to the
affordable housing obligations in the UU, and the existing and seemingly future
delivery, supply and affordability issues for housing in Chalfont St Giles and the
wider Chiltern area, including the Council’s 5 year housing land supply shortfall,
the benefits of the housing provision attract substantial weight in favour of the
proposal.
82. In addition, the proposed housing mix includes units for those with restricted
mobility, and the occupiers would contribute to the vitality and vibrancy of the
local community. Having regard to the amount of housing proposed, these are
benefits of limited weight. There would also be limited economic benefits from
the construction of the housing and the occupiers spending on services and
facilities in the vicinity of the site. The pedestrian accessibility improvements
and rest features, bus stop improvements and dial-a-ride service would benefit
some of the existing residents in the area and attract limited weight too.
Considering the amounts proposed, the biodiversity net gain and ecological
enhancements also constitute benefits of limited weight.
83. Taken together, I consider that there are other considerations in this case that
weigh substantially in favour of the proposal. However, the proposal would be
inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful.
There would also be substantial harm spatially and limited harm visually to the
openness of the Green Belt. In addition, the proposal would result in moderate
harm to the Green Belt’s purpose to assist in safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment. Paragraph 148 of the Framework explains that any harm to the
Green Belt attracts substantial weight.
84. Overall, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm identified.
Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify development in
the Green Belt do not exist.
85. Furthermore, whilst the presumption in favour of sustainable development at
paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is applicable because of the Council’s
housing supply position, the policies in the Framework that protect the Green
Belt provide clear reasons for refusing the development.
86. The proposal’s conflict with CS Policy CS9 and NP Policy H1 leads me to
conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan taken as a
whole. The material considerations identified do not outweigh the proposal’s
conflict with the development plan.
Conclusion
87. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Mark Philpott
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES at the Inquiry
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Rupert Warren QC instructed by [APPELLANT]
Martyn Jones [APPELLANT]
Chris Broughton arc4
Andy Meader AM2 Planning
Alex Bennett M-EC Consulting Development Engineers
Graham Davison Focus Environmental Consultants
Michael Ruddock Pegasus Group
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Ashley Bowes, Counsel instructed by the Council
Kerry Parr AECOM
Graham Mansfield Principal Planning Officer
Jordane Bates Senior Sustainable Drainage Officer
Mike Sharp Consultant Ecology Advisor
Teresa Coppock Solicitor
Ryan Kohli Cornerstone Barristers
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Grant Kirkby Councillor, Chalfont St Giles Parish Council
Peter Lerner on behalf of Protect St Giles Green Belt Group
David Beer Peter Crown James Dillon
Paul Killingback Jon Levart Ciaran Nagle
Mary Philips Janet Philpott Debbie Reid
Malcolm Smith Alexia Sudbury Neal Sudbury
Cetin Suleyman Russell White Lawrence Wolman
DOCUMENTS submitted during the Inquiry
1. Chalfont St Giles Parish Council appeal representation, 20 September 2021
2. Opening statement on behalf of the appellant
3. Opening statement on behalf of the Council
4. Qualifications for appellant appearances
5. Qualifications for Council appearances
6. Statement from Russell White, 20 September 2021
7. Schedule of amended conditions, 22 September 2021
8. Draft unilateral undertaking
9. Core documents list: Version 5
10.Buckinghamshire Green Belt Assessment - Report: Methodology and
Assessment of General Areas, 7 March 2016
11.List of matters/route for Inspector’s site visit, email from Peter Lerner dated
23 September 2021
12.Appellant’s response to the Council’s costs application
13.Confirmation of appellant’s agreement to pre-commencement conditions,
email from Michael Ruddock dated 23 September 2021
14.Closing statement on behalf of the Council
15.Court of Appeal judgement: Redhill Aerodrome Limited v SSCLG & Others
[2014] EWHC 2476 (Admin); [2014] EWCA Civ 1386
16.Closing statement of behalf of the appellant
17.Confirmation that the Council does not wish to comment on the appellant’s
response to the costs application, email from Graham Mansfield dated 24
September 2021
18.Unilateral Undertaking dated 28 September 2021


Costs Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) held on 11 May and 20 to 23 September 2021
Site visit made on 28 September 2021
by M Philpott BA(Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 5 November 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/20/3265964
Land off High View, Chalfont St Giles
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Buckinghamshire Council – East Area (Chiltern) for a full
award of costs against [APPELLANT].
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning permission
for erection of 42 affordable dwellings and associated access, parking and landscaping.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
The Submissions
2. The costs application and the response from the appellant were submitted in
writing. The Council did not submit any further comments following the
appellant’s response.
Reasons
3. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
4. The Council contends that the proposal clearly conflicted with Policy CS9 of the
Core Strategy for Chiltern District (CS) as it was not demonstrated that the
housing could be secured as affordable housing in perpetuity. It is put forward
that the proposal could only be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as
a consequence. Additionally, it is argued that the Government has made clear,
through means such as the Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) dated 17
December 2015, that unmet need is unlikely to clearly outweigh harm to the
Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to establish very special circumstances
justifying development. For these reasons the Council claims that the proposal
had no realistic prospect of success, the appellant’s pursuance of the appeal
was unreasonable, and this resulted in unnecessary and wasted expense.
5. The Council also asserts that it incurred wasted expense because of an
adjournment arising from the unreasonable introduction of new evidence within
the proof of evidence of the appellant’s housing need witness.
6. The PPG explains that an appellant is at risk of an award of costs being made
against them if an appeal had no reasonable prospect of succeeding. This may
occur when development is clearly not in accordance with the development
plan and no other material considerations such as national planning policy are
advanced that indicate the decision should have been made otherwise, or
where other material considerations are advanced, there is inadequate
supporting evidence.
7. Unreasonable behaviour may also include the introduction of fresh and
substantial evidence at a late stage necessitating an adjournment, or extra
expense for preparatory work that would not otherwise have arisen.
8. Whilst I found that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt, and the harm arising from the proposal would not be clearly
outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special
circumstances, the other considerations nevertheless weighed substantially in
favour of the proposal.
9. Even if the proposal was inappropriate development and conflicted with the
development plan because the affordable housing could not be secured in
perpetuity, factors identified within my decision letter indicate that the
affordable housing would have been retained over a long period. Moreover,
having regard to the housing supply, delivery and affordability issues in
Chalfont St Giles and the wider Chiltern area, the other considerations would
have attracted substantial weight in any event. Furthermore, I attached limited
weight to the WMS. Although the appeal was dismissed, I do not consider that
the appeal clearly had no prospect of succeeding. The appellant thus behaved
reasonably in pursuing the appeal to its conclusion.
10. It is not uncommon for new evidence to be submitted with an appeal in
response to objections. However, Annexe J of the Procedural Guidance1 sets
out that any arguments in reaction to documents such as planning officer
reports, and any data referred to and outlined in any assessment methodology
and the assumptions used in arguments, should be included in a full statement
of case. Furthermore, Annexe F of the Procedural Guidance states that proofs
of evidence should not contain new areas of evidence.
11. In this case the new evidence was directly relevant to the Council’s concerns
and the Council did not argue that the evidence was inadmissible. If the
appellant provided the new evidence at the start of the appeal, as it could have
reasonably done, the Council would likely have defended its position by
appointing an expert housing need witness in a similar manner to the way that
it did following the adjournment. It has not been explained how the
adjournment led directly to expenses being incurred by the Council that would
not otherwise have been necessary.
12. Furthermore, the Council made its application for an adjournment around 3
weeks after receipt of the proof of evidence. Although the appeal was
adjourned in the interests of fairness for all parties, I cannot be certain that the
adjournment would have been necessary if the Council had raised its concerns
regarding the evidence promptly after receiving the proof. For these reasons, I
am not satisfied that the submission of the evidence led to unnecessary or
wasted expense for the Council.
1 Procedural Guidance: Planning appeals – England
Conclusion
13. Unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary and wasted expense, as
described in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. The application for an award
of costs is refused.
Mark Philpott
INSPECTOR