Case Reference: 3298341

Appeal Decisions
Inquiry Held on 20-23 & 27-30 September and 4, 5 & 7 October 2022
Sites visit made on 3 October 2022
by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 28 November 2022
Appeal A - Ref: APP/Y3615/W/22/3298341
North Lodge Farm, Lower Road, Effingham, Leatherhead KT24 5JP
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant hybrid planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Guildford
Borough Council.
• The application Ref 21/P/01306, dated 7 May 2021, was refused by notice dated
4 April 2022.
• The development proposed is described as hybrid planning application for outline
planning permission (only access to be considered) for the erection of 4 self-build
dwellings on land at 408-410 Lower Road, Effingham following demolition of all existing
buildings; and full planning permission for the erection of 110 dwellings, with access,
parking, community assets, landscaping, and associated works on land at Effingham
Lodge Farm, Lower Road, Effingham.
Appeal B - Ref: APP/Y3615/W/22/3298390
Howard of Effingham School, Lower Road, Effingham KT24 5JR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval to details required by
conditions of a planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Guildford
Borough Council.
• The application Ref 21/P/00428, dated 16 February 2021, sought approval of details
pursuant to Condition Nos 2 & 3 of planning permission Ref 14/P/02109, granted on
21 March 2018.
• The application was refused by notice dated 23 March 2022.
• The development proposed is described as reserved matters application pursuant to
outline permission 14/P/02109 approved on 21/03/2018, to consider appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale in respect of the erection of 99 dwellings on Howard of
Effingham School.
• The details for which approval is sought are: appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.
Decisions
1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted in outline (only access to
be considered) for the erection of 4 self-build dwellings on land at 408-410 Lower
Road, Effingham following demolition of all existing buildings; and in full for the
erection of 110 dwellings, with access, parking, community assets, landscaping,
and associated works at North Lodge Farm, Lower Road, Effingham, in accordance
with the terms of the application, Ref 21/P/01306, dated 7 May 2021, subject to
the schedule of conditions appended.
2. Appeal B is dismissed.
Applications for Costs
3. Applications for costs were made by [APPELLANT] against
Guildford Borough Council and by Guildford Borough Council against Berkeley
Homes (Southern) Ltd. These applications shall be the subject of separate
Decisions to follow.
Background and Preliminary Matters
4. As set out above, there are two appeals relating to two separate planning
applications concerning distinct parcels of land. In the case of Appeal A the
land in question concerns three separate areas known as Sites A, B and C. The
Council’s remaining objections to Appeal A relate only to the development
proposed at Site A involving, amongst other things, the erection of 110
dwellings. Consequently, the assessment of the Appeal A scheme set out
below primarily relates to the development proposed at its Site A.
5. Appeal A is a hybrid planning application with full planning permission sought
for all elements of the proposals, including the 110 dwellings at Site A, except
for four self-build dwellings proposed at Site B for which outline permission is
sought. This outline element seeks only the determination of access at this
stage, with appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future
approval. Whilst not formally part of the scheme, I have treated the submitted
details relating to these reserved matters as a guide as to how Site B might be
developed.
6. An extant outline planning permission1 establishes the principle of the proposed
Appeal B development along with details of access. For ease of reference, I
refer to that permission as ‘the outline planning permission’ henceforth. It was
granted by the Secretary of State via his decision letter dated 21 March 2018,
to which my colleague Inspector’s report is appended (the previous Inspector’s
report), following a public inquiry held during May and June 2017.
7. The outline planning permission approved development at a number of sites in
addition to the Appeal B site, including land to the north on the opposite side of
Lower Road. In broad terms, the Appeal B site equates to the existing Howard
of Effingham School site. The Appeal B scheme is principally for 99 new
dwellings pursuant to the outline planning permission. It would entirely replace
the existing school as envisaged by the outline planning permission scheme
(the Outline Scheme).
8. In summary, the Outline Scheme aimed to replace the existing school with a
new purpose built school north of Lower Road, and to support this through the
delivery of residential development at land to the west of the new school site,
at the current school site and at a site to the south at Brown’s Lane. Pursuant
reserved matters applications have been made, including two for the new
school and associated development that have been approved. The appellant’s
case, amongst other things, is that the Outline Scheme is no longer viable such
that the Appeal A development is required in order to deliver the new school.
9. On the appellant’s evidence, therefore, the Outline Scheme cannot be
considered to represent any kind of fallback given that without the Appeal A
development it would not be developed for reasons of viability. On this basis,
1 Ref: 14/P/02109 – It should be noted that this permission is not only an outline planning permission but also
includes an element of full planning permission for residential development at land at ‘Brown's Field’
due to the terms under which the appellant seeks planning permission for the
Appeal A scheme, it would only be delivered alongside the Outline Scheme, and
not as a standalone development. Consequently, it is reasonable to assess the
Appeal A scheme on that basis and bearing in mind that the Secretary of State
has already found the Outline Scheme to be acceptable, albeit that it does not
represent a fallback option.
10. It is common ground that the proposed development at Site A of Appeal A
would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in the terms of the
National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) paras 147-150, such that it
should not be approved except in very special circumstances. I have found no
reason to disagree.
11. It is also common ground that the Appeal B development would cause less than
substantial harm, in the terms of Framework paras 199 and 202, to the
significance of both the Grade II* listed Church of All Saints and the Little
Bookham Conservation Area as designated heritage assets. I have determined
Appeal B on that basis as explained in the relevant ‘Reasons’ section below.
12. There is a legal agreement, dated 11 October 2022, made under s106 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the s106 Agreement) concerning the
Appeal A scheme only. The Council has confirmed that the s106 Agreement
resolves its third and fourth reasons for refusal in respect to that Appeal
scheme. I have had regard to it when making my decision.
Main Issues
13. The main issues for Appeal A are:
• The effect the proposed development would have on the openness of the
Green Belt and whether it would conflict with the purposes of including land
within the Green Belt by reason of encroachment into the countryside;
• The effect that the proposed development would have on the character and
appearance of the area; and
• On the basis that the proposals at Site A would be inappropriate
development in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of
inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other
considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary
to justify the development.
14. The main issue for Appeal B is the effect of the proposed development on the
setting of the Grade II* listed Church of All Saints and on that of the Little
Bookham Conservation Area.
15. As part of these main issues both appeals require an assessment of wider
considerations some of which are common to both appeals, such as housing
land supply.
Reasons - Appeal A
Green Belt – Openness and Purposes
16. The proposed development at Site A would extend the built form of the village
north of the housing and west of the school as permitted by the Outline
Scheme. Consequently, it would affect the openness of the Green Belt. That
effect would be tempered to an extent by the containing effect of nearby
development, particularly that planned at the adjoining Outline Scheme site,
and of mature planting in the vicinity, particularly the trees that line Effingham
Common Road to the west, those that would stand between Site A and the new
school site and most significantly the dense woodland at Thornet Wood to the
north, which includes Ancient Woodland. In this regard, it should also be noted
that the proposed housing would occupy only the southern portion of Site A
leaving the northern portion closest to Thornet Wood more open.
17. Nonetheless, the proposed development at Site A would have a very marked
effect on the openness of the Green Belt, both visually and spatially. This is
due largely to the scale and nature of the development proposed and the
comparatively open nature of the Site as it stands and even in the context of
the permitted Outline Scheme were that to be fully implemented. In short, it
would result in a significant reduction in the openness of the Green Belt. For
broadly these reasons, the proposed development at Site A would also conflict
with the purposes of Green Belt, particularly in terms of safeguarding the
countryside from encroachment and checking unrestricted sprawl.
18. These considerations, alongside the agreed position that the proposed scheme
at Site A would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, weigh
against the Appeal A proposals and are relevant to the assessment of whether
the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development exist. In
this regard, the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to
any harm to the Green Belt.
19. There would, therefore, be conflict with Policies ENP-G1 (A Spatial Plan for
Effingham) and ENP-G5 (Assessing suitability of sites for residential
development) of the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2030 (the ENP).
These Policies, in terms of how they relate to development in the Green Belt,
carry full weight bearing in mind that national Green Belt policy has not
changed significantly since the ENP was made in 2018.
20. Compliance or conflict with Policy P2 (Green Belt) of the Guildford Borough
Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 (the GBLPSS) is dependent on the
outcome of the assessment of whether very special circumstances exist to
justify the development. Consequently, it is dealt with later in my decision.
Character & Appearance
21. As outlined above, the Appeal A development would only proceed in the
context of the permitted Outline Scheme. The Council has granted a reserved
matters consent for housing pursuant to the outline planning permission on the
adjoining land to the south of Site A, which is known as ‘Phase 1’.
22. By extending the built form of the settlement, beyond that found to be
acceptable by the Secretary of State under the Outline Scheme, northward into
the countryside, the proposed development at Site A would harm the character
and appearance of the area. This is particularly so given the gateway role
performed by Effingham Common Road. Moreover, the relevant Landscape
Character Area appraisal identifies the value of gaps in linear development,
particularly where they allow rural views over fields or into woodland, and that
the expansion of residential development along roads and the proliferation of
suburban development are detracting features of the local area.
23. Nonetheless, that harm would be tempered due to the fairly contained nature
of the site as outlined in the preceding section and by the context that would
be provided by the approved neighbouring school and Phase 1 housing
developments to the east and south. It would, nonetheless, be readily
perceived in the local landscape, particularly from Effingham Common Road,
including from the new access point.
24. Notwithstanding the harm discussed above, the detail of the development
proposed at Site A represents a reasonable response to the site’s context,
particularly bearing in mind the detail of the scheme approved for the
neighbouring Phase 1 development. While the density of the proposed housing
at Site A would be somewhat higher than that of the approved Phase 1
scheme, its general design would broadly reflect the principles and character of
the Phase 1 scheme. The proposed density is also not untypical of that found
in other parts of the village.
25. Furthermore, the proposed landscaping scheme, including extensive tree and
hedge planting, would help give the impression of a lower density
development, providing an attractive setting for the proposed buildings and
structures, complementing the existing surrounding mature wooded landscape
and assist with assimilating the scheme into its context.
26. Nonetheless, the Site A development at large would represent a harmfully
urbanising addition to the extended form of the settlement resulting in the loss
of open countryside around the village. This harm to the character and
appearance of the area would be fairly moderate, though, given the reasonably
contained nature of Site A. Accordingly, in that regard, the Appeal A scheme
would be contrary to Policy D1 (Place Shaping) of the GBLPSS, and Policy
ENP-G2 (Landscape, Heritage, Character, and Design) of the ENP.
Other Considers
27. As the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that is harmful to
the Green Belt it should not be approved except in very special circumstances.
‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the
Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from
the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In addition to the
harm identified above there are a number of considerations within the evidence
that have the potential to affect the outcome of the assessment of whether
very special circumstances exist to justify the development (the VSC balance).
While not the only other considerations, notable amongst these are matters
associated with housing land supply and the existing and proposed school.
Housing Supply
28. There was much evidence before the Inquiry relating to whether or not the
Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply in the terms of the
Framework (5YHLS). In this case the so-called tilted planning balance cannot
be engaged due to the site’s location within the Green Belt. Consequently, in
that respect the 5YHLS position is somewhat academic, such that I have not
found it necessary to come to a formal position on the matter. In broader
terms though, the housing delivery position in the area needs to be adequately
appreciated so that the significance of the contribution that the proposed
development would make to housing delivery may be appropriately assessed.
In that sense the 5YHLS evidence is of considerable assistance.
29. During the GBLPSS adoption process, the Council was allowed by the local plan
examining Inspector to adopt an approach of spreading past unmet need over
the plan period in recognition of the contribution that would be made by
strategic allocations which typically have a longer lead-in time. This is known
as the Liverpool approach. It contrasts to the Sedgefield approach whereby
the level of deficit or shortfall is calculated from the base date of the adopted
plan and then added to the plan requirement for the next 5 year period. Of
course, I make no criticism of the GBLPSS examining Inspector for taking this
approach, the sound justification for which is clearly set out in his report of
27 March 2019.
30. Nonetheless, unmet housing need existed at that time. The GBLPSS appears
likely to have been adopted on the understanding that housing would be
delivered along the lines of the trajectory set out in its Appendix 1. In practice,
there has already been significant slippage against that trajectory. The base
date employed by the Council and the appellant for their 5YHLS calculations is
1 April 2021, against which there is a substantial shortfall in housing delivery
on either of these parties’ evidence.
31. The Council considers that shortfall to be 828 homes whereas the appellant
maintains that it is 1,011, compared to the adopted annualised requirement of
562 homes. Of course this annualised requirement figure is derived from the
GBLPSS rather than the Government’s current preferred standard method
approach. The appellant’s evidence indicates the annualised figure calculated
using the standard method would be uncapped at 803 homes and capped at
787 dwellings, such that housing need appears likely to be greater than is
planned for in the GBLPSS.
32. Again, I make no criticism of the approach taken at the time the GBLPSS was
prepared and adopted. I make these points merely to help build a reasonable
picture of likely housing need as it is understood now. To that end, based on
the evidence before me, the appellant’s figure of 1,011 homes appears to be
the more accurate of the two 5YHLS shortfall figures put forward. The reasons
for this are primarily associated with how student accommodation is accounted
for. I favour the appellant’s evidence on this matter as it appears to be more
consistent with the approach taken in the GBLPSS from which the 5YHLS
housing requirement is derived. An uplift was applied to the objectively
assessed housing need of the GBLPSS to take account of an increased growth
in the student population, which is explained in the examining Inspector’s
report.
33. Another area of dispute between the Council and the appellant concerns the
yield of housing that would be delivered from 13 specific sites over the relevant
5 years period. The difference between the parties is some 696 homes. As
stated above, I have not found it necessary to take a formal position on 5YHLS.
I have, nonetheless, used the Council’s 5 year housing delivery figure of 3,785
homes as a guide as to what might be delivered in the coming years. In
reality, however, it seems more likely that delivery will be notably lower than
that figure over the 5 years in question. This is because of some of the likely
delivery issues identified by the appellant at the disputed sites, and because
the Council’s approach to windfall sites is based on past permissions rather
than actual delivery such that it is likely to overstate future windfall yield.
34. Overall, the key points that come out of the housing supply evidence are that
the current delivery backlog is substantial, there has been slippage in delivery,
and that the backlog is very unlikely to be fully addressed for several years.
Even applying the Council’s supply figure of 3,785 homes, and using the
appellant’s shortfall figure of 1,011 homes and the GBLPSS requirement figure
of 562 homes per annum, the backlog would not be cleared before March 2026
at the earliest.
35. It is worth pausing here to remember that behind these figures are real
households that have experienced real housing need for a number of years,
need which seems unlikely to be fully addressed for several more years.
Consequently, regardless of the 5YHLS position, the contribution the Appeal A
development would make to helping to address the evident need for market
housing is significant.
36. An affordable housing need of 517 homes per annum was identified as part of
the evidence base for the GBLPSS. Yet an average of only 39 affordable homes
per annum have been delivered in the last 6 years. Unsurprisingly, therefore,
the evidence indicates that waiting lists for affordable housing are lengthy in
terms of the time it takes applicants to access an affordable home.
Accordingly, the contribution that the Appeal A development would make to the
delivery of affordable homes would also be significant.
37. I have made the foregoing assessment bearing in mind the appeal decision
made in May this year concerning development at Land at Ash Manor, Ash,
Guildford. Although there is reference to housing land supply in that decision,
the Council’s case then, that it could demonstrate a greater than 5YHLS, was
not in dispute such that the housing land supply evidence at that appeal would
not have been tested in the manner that it has been in the case before me.
That site also formed part of an allocation in the development plan such that
the principle of its development was not in question. Consequently, in regard
to the 5YHLS position, I have given that decision very limited weight when
making my assessment.
The School – Need
38. The Framework states, at para 95, that it is important that a sufficient choice
of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new
communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and
collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that
will widen choice in education. They should: a) give great weight to the need to
create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions
on applications; and b) work with school promoters, delivery partners and
statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications
are submitted.
39. The Policy Statement – Planning for Schools Development (the Schools Policy
Statement), a joint statement by the then Secretaries of State for Communities
and Local Government and for Education, sets out the Government’s
commitment to support the development of state-funded schools and their
delivery through the planning system. While the Schools Policy Statement was
published in August 2011 prior to any iteration of the Framework, it remains a
statement of Government policy.
40. As stated in the previous Inspector’s report, the Schools Policy Statement
makes clear that the Government is firmly committed to ensuring there is
sufficient provision to meet growing demand and increasing choice and
opportunity in state-funded education. Its purpose, to allow for more provision
and greater diversity to meet both demographic need and drive increased
choice and higher standards, remains unambiguous. Consequently, need in
this context is not only comprised of demographic need, but also the need for
greater choice as well as the need to raise educational standards.
41. In its statement of case for the current appeals, while referring to changed
circumstances since the outline planning permission was granted, the Council
accepted the need for the school and identified that the benefits of the
development include the continuing need for the replacement of the existing
school on grounds of the inadequacy of the existing facility and the need for its
expansion. Reserved matters, pursuant to the outline planning permission, for
the replacement school has been approved by the Council. The approved
details include the sixth form centre, the Cullum Centre, office accommodation
for the wider school Trust, and a caretaker’s dwelling.
42. There is evidence before me that challenges a demographic need for the
additional two forms of entry that the approved scheme would provide.
Nonetheless, there is good reason to believe that there is in the region of 53
additional places per year, including a capacity buffer to allow for variability
and choice, now needed compared to a standard 60 places for two forms per
year. Additionally, there are housing proposals in the school’s catchment,
which are likely to lead to even greater local need and for which there is
uncertainty regarding how such need would be met. Overall, therefore, while
there may not be a statutory duty on any school to plan for or provide a
specific number of places generally or at sixth form level, there is good reason
to believe that there is numerical need for a 10 form entry school.
43. Specifically regarding the sixth form, Years 12 and 13, the school’s plan to
accommodate 500 students in total also appears reasonable given the evidence
regarding stay-on rates from Year 11 and that in the region of 50 external
students per school year may join the sixth form.
44. Surrey County Council (SCC) does have a statutory duty to secure sufficient
schools for providing secondary education. Those schools shall not be regarded
as sufficient unless they are sufficient in number, character and equipment to
provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education. In my view,
need as expressed in policy, as discussed above, goes beyond sufficiency in the
terms of SCC’s statutory role. I note also that SCC supports the proposed
expanded school.
45. There also appears to be no dispute that the school is a good school. This is
supported by Ofsted, for instance the sixth form is currently rated as
‘Outstanding’. The evidence, taken as a whole, also indicates that it is a
popular school. It seems very likely that its appeal would increase, including
the sixth form, were the approved school to be implemented given the
enhanced facilities that would be on offer not only compared to the existing
school but to other schools that might otherwise have attracted students away
from it, including non-state schools. Accordingly, while I recognise that there
are other high performing schools in the area that will continue to be attractive
to students and their parents, the proposed school’s capacity appears very
realistic in terms of responding to need and of proving sufficiently attractive to
meet that planned capacity.
46. The Cullum Centre would also respond to a recognised and important special
educational need. Incorporating it into the new school, as is planned and as is
provided for in the approved school scheme, would allow children to be taught
within the mainstream of the school while providing them with the additional
support and bespoke space needed to support their education. There is
reference to there being potential to provide it at the existing school site and,
in theory, it could be provided elsewhere. Moreover, the funding for the
Cullum Centre was sought and awarded without reliance on a new school.
Nonetheless, in practice there are no realistic firm plans to deliver such a
facility other than as part of the new school.
47. Given that these special needs students may be either in the mainstream part
of the school or within the Cullum Centre, provision should be made for them in
both. Making such dual provision is integral to supporting these students’
education. Consequently, the addition of the Cullum Centre cannot amount to
double-counting in terms of quantifying need for school places.
The School – Design & Costing
48. The appellant’s viability case is linked to the matter of whether or not the cost
of delivering the proposed school would be excessive. If it were to be for any
reason, including those that might be associated with its design, that excessive
cost has the potential to effect the viability of the Outline Scheme.
49. Amongst the areas of disagreement between the main parties on this matter
are the size of the planned school, the Cullum Centre, the sports facilities, and
the school trust offices that are planned to be provided at the new school site.
Before considering these and other matters, it is worth remembering that the
planned new school is a self-funded project. It is not a Department for
Education (DfE) / Education & Skills Funding Agency project and nor would it
involve any financial contribution from either. Consequently, the DfE funding
model is of limited assistance to my assessment.
50. Regarding the school size, Building Bulletin 103 - Area Guidelines for
Mainstream Schools, June 2014, (BB103) sets out area guidelines for
mainstream school buildings and sites for all age ranges from 3 to 19. On
reasonable reading, BB103 provides a floorspace range, as is clearly shown in
Figure 4 for ages 11 to 16 and Figure 5 for post 16 places. I see no good
reason why these ranges should not be used to help assess the reasonableness
of the approved school’s area.
51. As set out in the preceding sub-section, the planned capacity of 1,500 students
in Years 7 to 11, the age range 11 to 16, and 500 students in the sixth form,
the plus 16 age group, appears reasonable based on need. Applying Figure 4
to 1,500 students gives an area range of some 10,500-12,000m2. Figure 5
only shows the ranges for up to 300 students. Nonetheless, the ranges for 200
and 300 students can be combined to give a reasonable range for a sixth form
of 500 students. The result of doing so is a combined area range for a sixth
form of some 4,150-4,800m2. When these figures are combined, they give a
whole school, Years 7 to 13, area range of some 14,650-16,800m2.
52. The area of the approved school facility alone is some 14,964m2. This would
be comfortably within the area range identified above based on BB103. The
combined area of the school along with the Cullum Centre, Trust office space
and nursery area of the approved reserved matters amounts to some
16,187m2, which is also below the upper end of the range for a 2,000 student
school.
53. Nonetheless, as outlined above, the Cullum Centre would sit alongside the
mainstream element of the school to allow students with particular special
educational needs to move from one to the other according to their needs at
any given time. Indeed, the Cullum Centre appears to align more closely to a
designated unit for students with autistic-spectrum disorder, which attracts
additional facilities over and above the standard BB103 area allowance rather
than an integrated specialist resource provision. Consequently, there is good
reason to omit its some 474m2 from the area calculations based on BB103.
This planned area for the Cullum Centre also appears reasonable in order to
accommodate the 20 students it is designed to support.
54. As it would serve pre-school aged children who would be well outside the age
range considered in BB103 Figures 4 and 5, there is also good reason to omit
the some 155m2 nursery from the area calculations based on BB103. Nor does
this area appear excessive having regard to the evidence on early learning and
childcare.
55. The Council’s evidence is that the school should be planned for a capacity of
1,935 rather than 2,000 students. Applying BB103 Figures 4 and 5 to 1,935
students results in an area range of up to some 16,250m2, a little larger than
the combined area of the approved school of some 16,187m2, including the
Cullum Centre and nursery.
56. For all of the foregoing reasons, therefore, the approved school area would not
be overlarge.
57. Regarding sports facilities, including the all-weather pitches, the sports hall and
the sprint track, the approved details are large, extensive and of good quality.
Nonetheless, given the planned size of the school they do not appear excessive
in any way.
58. The school forms part of a multi-academy trust, the Howard Partnership
Trust (the Trust), which is comprised of 13 schools with a 14th in the pipeline.
The Trust’s main offices are currently hosted at the existing school site. It is
proposed that the new school site would also accommodate the main offices of
the Trust. The approved school premises include 594m2 of office space for this
purpose. In theory this office space could be located elsewhere. Nonetheless,
there appear to be sound operational reasons for including this facility at the
school now and in the future, including if the school were to relocate to new
premises, as is planned, particularly given that this is the lead school in the
Trust.
59. While I recognise that they would have been purely for illustrative purposes,
the details that were before the previous Inspector and the Secretary of State
when the Outline Scheme was considered and approved, included clear
reference to and provision for such cross-Trust accommodation. Consequently,
it is reasonable to conclude that they both found this aspect of the proposals
acceptable as a matter of principle even though it is not expressly referenced in
the description of development or controlled by way of planning conditions /
planning obligation.
60. Bearing in mind the scale of the Trust, with some 1,417 employees, and that
the proposed space would house a range of functions, including finance, human
resources, information technology, estates and senior management, the
planned provision for 56 members of Trust staff at the new school seems
reasonable. The area of cross-Trust office space that has been approved at the
reserved matters stage also appears proportionate to this amount of staff.
Overall, therefore, the proposals to accommodate Trust office facilities at the
new school appear reasonable.
61. A caretaker’s dwelling forms part of the approved details which are planned to
be implemented as part of the new school site. Like any other aspect of those
approved details, it could in theory be omitted or altered via a new reserved
matters application. Nonetheless, there is a caretaker’s dwelling at the existing
school site, which serves a functional purpose linked to the school use. As one
of the key, if not the key, objectives of the overall project is to replace the
existing school facility at a new site, it seems reasonable to have included the
caretaker’s dwelling as part of the new school development. As such its
inclusion as planned and approved is not unacceptable for the purposes of
assessing viability.
62. The Council maintains that a number of costs should be removed from the cost
of the new school as forecast by the appellant. At least some of these appear
to be as a consequence of using a BCIS rate that appears to be more
appropriate for school extensions than for a new school. Extensions can be
expected to be less costly than entirely new schools as they are unlikely to
require the same infrastructure and may involve the use of existing structures,
such as an external wall to build off. Consequently, the use of the BCIS rate
employed by the appellant for whole new high schools appears more
appropriate. I note that the appellant’s detailed costings for the planned school
are a little less than this whole school BCIS rate.
63. My attention has also been drawn to aspects of the contract between the
appellant and the Trust, including in terms of ‘Information Computer
Technology’ equipment and ‘Fixtures Fittings and Equipment’ for the new
school. The general approach taken to these matters appears reasonable,
particularly bearing in mind that such existing loose equipment would be
largely transferred from the existing school to the new school thereby avoiding
additional expense. Nonetheless, the appellant’s costings appear to include at
least some costs for loose equipment that would be transferred from the
existing school to the new school as well as for some equipment that the Trust
would fund under the terms of the contract.
64. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I have found no good reason to conclude
that the planned school premises would be inappropriate in size, content and
quality. Subject to the preceding point, the same can be said in respect to
costs.
65. I return to costing in the following subsection on viability. Before doing so and
while not determinative, I also note that, aside from the planning process, the
approval of the Government’s Education & Skills Funding Agency is necessary
for the school to proceed. I am advised that the Secretary of State has to
approve all disposals of publicly owned schools and be satisfied that value for
money is being achieved.
Viability
66. As outlined above, having regard to everything I saw and heard during the
appeal process, I do not consider that the approved/planned school is
excessive, including it terms of its function, size and quality. The anticipated
costs associated with its delivery, with some limited exceptions, do not appear
to be overstated.
67. At the planning application stage the scheme was independently assessed in
terms of costs and viability by suitably qualified consultants on behalf of the
Council. That assessment found the scheme to be unviable, broadly in line
with the appellant’s submissions at that stage. I have found no good reason to
disagree with the findings of that independent assessment. Indeed the most
up to date, bespoke evidence on viability before me indicates that the scheme
would be unviable without the Appeal A development. The evidence also
indicates that the appellant has generally gone to reasonable lengths to
constrain building costs and that this appears to have been reasonably
successful given that costs would be below the appropriate BCIS median figure.
This also indicates that, notwithstanding the foregoing matters, the appellant’s
overall assessment of costs is reasonable.
68. Although it refers expressly to plan making, I also see no good reason why the
profit range of 15-20% identified in the Government’s planning practice
guidance (PPG) should not reasonably be applied to a scheme of this type in
order to assess viability, particularly when read in the context of para 58 of the
Framework. Given the fairly difficult and comparatively uncertain economic
circumstances for the construction sector at present and regardless of what
profit margin the appellant has worked to in the past, it is reasonable to
assume developer risk is greater now than at other more economically stable
times. Consequently, notwithstanding the evidence regarding house prices and
demand for housing in the area, and in respect to programming and sales
revenue, a profit target to the higher end of the range, up to 20% of gross
development value, is reasonable.
69. While I generally favour the appellant’s assessment of costs and viability, once
adjusted for the additional cost of the all-weather pitches, which I consider to
be appropriate, the Council’s witnesses’ cost plan and viability assessment
indicate that the blended return on gross development value would equate to a
value, towards the higher end of the range identified in the PPG, but below
20%. On this basis, this aspect of the evidence lends support to the case that
without the Appeal A development the wider development would not be viable,
and that the appellant’s overall assessment of costs is reasonable.
70. Given the foregoing, while having regard to all of the evidence on viability,
overall it has been demonstrated that the Outline Scheme, including the new
school, would not be viable without the Appeal A development.
Other Potential Alternatives
71. Various further potential alternatives to delivering a replacement school,
enhancing the existing school and the means of financing the delivery of such
alternatives rather than via the Appeal A development have been put to me.
There is though an approved detailed scheme for the replacement school which
has outline planning permission and reserved matters approval, which the
Trust wishes to implement. I have also found the approved school scheme to
be acceptable in the terms I have outlined above.
72. None of these suggested alternatives are as well developed as the approved
school scheme and nor do they appear to have been subjected to anything
approaching the degree and range of scrutiny, testing and assessment that the
approved scheme has been the subject of. Whether such other schemes
represent genuine alternatives, therefore, remains very doubtful. As they
have not been thoroughly scrutinised, for instance through the planning
application / reserved matters process, the extent and degree of harm that
they might give rise to is also very hard to estimate.
73. The only planning permission for an enhanced school is that which is comprised
within the Outline Scheme. There are, of course, two approved reserved
matters schemes pursuant to that planning permission for new schools, one of
which does not include elements of the other, including the caretaker’s
dwelling. Nonetheless, for the reasons outlined above, there are good reasons
for including all of the elements of the Trust’s preferred scheme.
74. Consequently, attempting to compare the approved school and / or the
Appeal A development with such ‘alternatives’ is of very limited assistance.
I have, therefore, primarily focussed on the Appeal A development in the
context of the Outline Scheme, including the approved details of the
replacement school that the Trust intends to implement. The VSC balance of
the Framework is the appropriate mechanism for assessing the acceptability or
otherwise of inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Other Matters
75. In addition to the foregoing matters, concern has been expressed by interested
parties, including those who spoke at the Inquiry, in respect to a number of
other considerations relating to Appeal A. These matters include the effect of
the proposed development on traffic and highway safety, on biodiversity, on
the ENP, on the Ancient Woodland and other trees and hedges, on drainage /
flooding risk, on open space including within the approved scheme, on
separation between settlements, on playing fields and their provision, on
mental health, on pollution, and on climate change; and the adequacy of local
facilities, services and infrastructure and the measures proposed to supplement
these, of parking, of affordable housing, of local employment opportunities, and
of renewable energy measures within the development.
76. Additionally concerns have been raised in respect to the site not being allocated
for housing in the development plan, the proposed housing mix and location of
affordable housing, the masterplan for the appellant’s wider proposals should
be revisited and / or a new application made for the whole development, the
increased local population resulting from the development, the approval of this
development leading to further proposed housing, the loss of 408 and 410
Lower Road instead of being retained and refurbished, changed circumstances
since the Outline Scheme was approved, loss of countryside, the relevance of
the approved school scheme to the determination of Appeal A, the appellant’s
motives and conduct, the condition of the existing school, the consideration of
the Appeal A in the wider context of other development plans and proposals in
the area, the strength and volume of local objection compared to support, and
the displacement of students.
77. Other than as set out above, the Council did not conclude at the application
determination stage or at the appeal stage that these matters would amount to
reasons to justify withholding planning permission. I have been provided with
no substantiated evidence which would prompt me to disagree with the
Council’s conclusions in that regard.
Planning Obligations
78. In the event that planning permission for the Appeal A scheme were to be
granted and implemented the s106 Agreement would secure:
• Payments towards early years education, bus service improvements,
including a Digital Demand Responsive Bus Service, the traffic calming
scheme in Lower Road / Effingham Common Road, auditing of the travel
plan, and police and health infrastructure;
• Provision of 22 affordable homes on site;
• Provision of the four proposed self-build dwellings at Site B and controls in
the event that there is insufficient demand for the plots;
• Measures to mitigate the effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special
Protection Area (TBHSPA) as a European Site, as discussed below;
• The provision and equipping of the proposed on-site open space, including
play equipment and allotments, and controls on delivery; and
• Timing restriction on development related to the delivery of the school
permitted by the outline planning permission.
79. The Council has submitted a detailed statement for Appeal A (the CIL
Statement), which addresses the application of statutory requirements to the
planning obligations within the s106 Agreement and also sets out the relevant
planning policy support / justification. I have considered the s106 Agreement
in light of Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
2010 (as amended) and Government policy and guidance on the use of
planning obligations. Having done so, I am satisfied that they would be
required by and accord with the policies set out in the CIL Statement. Overall,
I am also satisfied that all of those obligations are directly related to the
Appeal A development, and in each case are fairly and reasonably related to it
and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms.
Appropriate Assessment
80. Under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2017 (as amended) as competent authority I am required to undertake an
Appropriate Assessment of the Appeal A development on the basis of its Likely
Significant Effects on the TBHSPA as a European Site. The mitigation proposed
to address these effects are the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural
Greenspace and Strategic Access Management and Monitoring.
81. Having regard to the submissions of Natural England and relevant planning
policy, including the Council’s Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area
Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document, I consider that the
proposed measures would adequately mitigate the effects of the Appeal A
development, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, so
that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the TBHSPA.
Moreover, in the event that Appeal A were to be allowed, the mitigation would
be secured and managed via the s106 Agreement.
Conditions
82. The Council and appellant have put forward suggested planning conditions to
be imposed in the event that Appeal A were to be allowed. I have considered
these in the light of Government guidance on the use of conditions in planning
permissions and made amendments accordingly. My conclusions are
summarised below.
83. In order to provide certainty, conditions requiring that the development is
carried out in accordance with the approved plans, so far as they relate to
matters that are not reserved for future consideration, would be necessary. A
condition would be necessary to ensure that features of archaeological interest
are properly examined / recorded. In the interests of protecting highway
safety, biodiversity, Ancient Woodland and residents’ living conditions, and
safeguarding against pollution, conditions would also be necessary to ensure
that the construction works proceed in accordance with a Construction
Environmental Management Plan, with a Construction Transport Management
Plan and a Site Waste Management Plan, and to control hours of working.
84. To ensure that the Ancient Woodland is further protected, a condition to secure
the implementation of a woodland management plan would be necessary. A
condition to control drainage and its management would be necessary in the
interests of flood prevention, to protect the environment and to secure
acceptable living conditions for residents. To protect the character and
appearance of the area, conditions to control the ground and floor levels and
the detailed appearance of the development, including facing materials and
boundary treatment, would also be necessary. For that reason and in the
interests of biodiversity, conditions would be necessary to secure and maintain
planting and landscaping as part of the development, to protect trees beyond
the Ancient Woodland, reptiles and bats, and to secure the implementation of a
landscape and ecological management plan.
85. To help the development harmonise with its context, in the interests of
highway safety and to secure suitable access arrangements, conditions would
also be necessary to control details of access, internal highways, visibility
splays, parking, turning and service areas. To promote sustainable modes of
transport, reduce the need for travel and in the interests of highway safety,
conditions would be necessary to secure the implementation of a travel plan
and to secure suitable on-site cycle storage, e-vehicle charging infrastructure
and an e-car club. A condition to safeguard against contamination that might
affect the site, along with any requisite remediation, would be necessary to
protect the health and well-being of future occupiers and off-site receptors as
well as in the interests of biodiversity.
86. To support the development of high quality communication infrastructure, a
condition to assist the delivery of high-speed broadband to the development
would be necessary. To ensure suitable servicing of the development and to
protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition would be
necessary to secure the implementation of a Refuse Strategy for the site.
Conditions to secure off-site highway improvements to the junctions of Lower
Road / Church Road / High Street and of The Street / Guildford Road / Beech
Avenue, would be necessary in the interests of highway safety. To improve
water efficiency and respond to climate change, a condition to secure the
implementation of a water efficiency statement would be necessary.
87. To help provide a flexible housing stock to meet a wide range of needs, a
condition would be necessary to secure accessible and adaptable homes as part
of the development. A condition would exceptionally be necessary to provide
control over the enclosure of garages / parking barns to protect the character
and appearance of the area and to retain parking in the interests of highway
safety. To help ensure that the development has an acceptable effect in terms
of crime and safety, a condition would be necessary to ensure that it accords
with the Secured by Design standard. To respond to climate change and
improve energy efficiency, conditions would be necessary to ensure compliance
with the submitted Energy Statement, Supplementary Sustainability Statement
and Sustainable Specification and Procurement Policy documents.
Conclusion on Very Special Circumstances
88. For the reasons outlined earlier in this section, the proposed Appeal A
development would be necessary in order to render the Outline Scheme viable
and the replacement school deliverable. Moreover, the approved / planned
replacement school, including the associated facilities that would be provided
within the school premises, would be appropriate, including in terms of size,
quality and cost viability.
89. Consequently, the Appeal A development would allow the delivery of the
approved school and with it the associated benefits of the Outline Scheme. By
the same token it would also result in the associated harm. These include
various forms of harm to the Green Belt, harm to the character and appearance
of the area and less than substantial harm to Effingham Conservation Area.
These benefits and harms were assessed by the previous Inspector and the
Secretary of State when considering the Outline Scheme. Those benefits of
that Scheme were found to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by
reason of inappropriateness and other harm such that very special
circumstances were found to exist at that time, thus leading to planning
permission being granted.
90. Since the Outline Scheme was approved the housing land supply position in the
area has improved. Nonetheless, for the reasons outlined above, the
contribution that the Outline Scheme would make to housing delivery is still
very weighty as a benefit and would be augmented by the additional homes
that would be provided by the Appeal A development. The weight carried by
the wider benefits of the Outline Scheme does not appear to be significantly
altered now compared to how they were identified and characterised by the
previous Inspector. The delivery of the new school and the Cullum Centre, in
the context of need and of the condition of the existing school, were found to
carry particularly substantial cumulative weight. In light of the foregoing, they
still carry such weight in the Green Belt planning balance.
91. In addition to the harm associated with the Outline Scheme, the Appeal A
development would cause further harm to the Green Belt and to the character
and appearance of the area as outlined above. Taken together these
components of harm weigh very heavily against the Appeal A development in
the Green Belt planning balance, particularly bearing in mind the great
importance the Government attaches to Green Belts. Indeed, the cumulative
harm that would now arise would be even greater than the ‘significant quantum
of planning harm’ found by the previous Inspector associated with the Outline
scheme, which of course would involve the demolition of the existing school
buildings and construction of an entirely new school and with these the
associated sustainability impacts.
92. Against this harm, if Appeal A were to be allowed it would release the delivery
of an even more significant number of homes than permitted by the Outline
Scheme, both affordable and market. Irrespective of whether or not the
Council can currently demonstrate a 5YHLS, given the circumstances outlined
above regarding housing delivery and the need for affordable housing, the
effect of allowing Appeal A on housing supply would be very significant,
carrying very considerable beneficial weight.
93. I have found no reason to disagree with the previous Inspector’s assessment
that the provision of a new and expanded school on the basis of the significant
shortcomings of its current infrastructure, its condition and current financial
circumstances for its maintenance and repair, the demonstrated need for its
expansion, and very strong Government policy support for such a proposal for
which there are no credible or sustainable alternatives, all together merit, in
the particular circumstances of this case, very substantial weight being given to
them.
94. While there are other lesser benefits at play, including biodiversity net gain
associated with the Appeal A development, it is the benefits associated with the
delivery of the much needed approved new school and the provision of new
housing, as previously approved and as supplemented by the current proposal,
that when taken together would clearly outweigh the totality of harm, including
to the Green Belt, heritage, character and appearance, and the associated
development plan conflict, so that very special circumstances exist. The
Appeal A development therefore accords, in that regard, with Policy P2 of
the GBLPSS.
95. In making this assessment I have taken into account that a colleague Inspector
gave lesser weight than I have to some of these benefits in her appeal
decision, which concerns housing development that was proposed at a site in
Church Lane, Effingham, made in December 2021. Nonetheless, that proposal
was for a significantly smaller quantum of development, such that the scale of
benefits would have been likely to have been less weighty than in this case,
thus accounting for our apparently differing approaches.
96. Additionally, that appeal decision was made via the written representations
procedure. Consequently, the breadth and depth of evidence concerning such
benefits, particularly that related to housing land supply, is likely to have been
significantly less in that case compared to this one. Nor would that evidence
have been tested in the manner that has been possible in this case via the
inquiry process. These matters might, therefore, also account for why she and
I have taken a different approach to the weight carried by the benefits of the
respective schemes.
97. Given the outcome of the VSC balance, the Appeal A scheme would represent
sustainable development in the terms of the Framework, which is a material
consideration that, in the particular circumstances of the case, outweighs the
conflict with the development plan as a whole sufficient to warrant the granting
of planning permission.
Reasons - Appeal B
98. All of the main parties’ evidence at the appeal stage identifies at least some
harm to the historic environment resulting from the Appeal B development,
particularly in terms of the effect it would have on the Church of All Saints, as a
grade II* listed building, and on Little Bookham Conservation Area. I have
applied the appellant’s position that the resulting harm to the significance of
each of these heritage assets would be at the lower end of the less than
substantial spectrum rather than towards the mid-point as contended by the
Council, and that this would be for the reasons identified by the appellant.
99. I do not necessarily agree with this position. I have simply employed it as a
benchmark to assist in making my decision on the basis that it identifies the
least amount of harm that the witnesses on this matter have identified. I have
also found no good reason to conclude that the development would be any less
harmful to the historic environment than the appellant has identified. It
represents the minimum harm, therefore.
100. Consequently, in this regard, the Appeal B development would conflict with
Policy D3 (Historic Environment) of the GBLPSS, Policies HE4 (Setting of a
Listed Building) and HE10 (Setting of a Conservation Area) of the Guildford
Borough Local Plan 2003 and Policy ENP-G3 (Archaeology and the Historic
Environment) of the ENP. I note that Policies HE4, HE10 and ENP-G3 do not
include the public benefits balance of Framework para 202.
101. Applying this minimum level of harm as a benchmark, there are two
balancing exercises to be done. The first is that set out in para 202 of the
Framework, in the context of the statutory requirements of s66(1) of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act).
The second is the more common balancing exercise under s38(6) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 having regard, amongst other
material considerations, to the Framework, including its paras 200 and 202.
The former is dealt with first as its outcome has the potential to effect the
operation of the latter.
102. Para 199 of the Framework gives ‘great weight’ to the conservation of
designated heritage assets irrespective of whether that harm would be
substantial or less than substantial. This weight applies to all designated
heritage assets and is then amplified in proportion to the importance of the
asset. In this case there are two heritage assets that are effected.
103. The Appeal B site is not within Little Bookham Conservation Area, but does
stand within its setting. While the LBCA Act provides no statutory protection
for the setting of conservation areas, para 200 of the Framework establishes
the need to consider the negative impact of development within the setting of
all designated heritage assets. The Church of All Saints, as a grade II* listed
building, is a particularly important building and of more than special interest,
with only around 5.8% of listed buildings being at grade II*. Consequently,
the weight to be attached to the identified ‘benchmark’ level of harm to the
significance of these heritage assets is very great.
104. There are strong public benefits at play in this case. The Appeal B
development would directly deliver 99 homes, including 19 affordable homes.
In contrast to the Appeal A assessment, I have also taken the appellant’s
position on housing land supply as a further benchmark to establish relative
weight to assist in making my decision on Appeal B. On that basis, the delivery
of the homes, both market and affordable, permitted at the Appeal B site would
be very significant in terms of public benefits. Moreover, as a component of
the Outline Scheme the delivery of the replacement school is dependent on the
Appeal B development. For the reasons outlined above, the delivery of the
planned new school would also be very significant in terms of public benefits.
105. All of the public benefits that have been identified by the appellant, including
those associated with the housing to be provided at the Appeal B site and those
associated with the new school, would undoubtedly be very weighty as
assessed above in respect to Appeal A. In this case, however, in contrast to
the Appeal A assessment, the previous Inspector found that the approved
development at the Appeal B site could be achieved without material harm to
the setting of the Little Bookham designated heritage assets and that
development of the site would preserve the setting of the listed buildings, so
according with the requirements of section 66.
106. Having regard to all of the evidence, I have found no reason to disagree with
the previous Inspector on this matter as set out in his report, including its
para 388. Having regard to this and other parts of his report, the Secretary of
State agreed that there is no policy conflict in respect of the impact on the
settings of other heritage assets. It is clear, therefore, that both the previous
Inspector and the Secretary of State did not envisage even the least level of
harm that would result from the Appeal B scheme when they considered the
parent outline application. Moreover, it is reasonable to conclude that a
reserved matters scheme of some form for this part of the Outline Scheme
could deliver all of the benefits of the Appeal B scheme without harm, or at the
least less harm, to the significance of the two heritage assets in question that
would occur as a result of the Appeal B development.
107. In this context, therefore, notwithstanding the great totality of public
benefits, those benefits are not collectively sufficient to outweigh the
‘benchmark’ less than substantial harm to the significance of the Church of All
Saints and to the significance of Little Bookham Conservation Area, bearing in
mind the strong presumption against development that would cause such
harm, and that such harm should be given considerable importance and
weight, especially having regard to the particular national importance and more
than special interest of the grade II* listed building. Consequently, irrespective
of the 5YHLS position, the tilted balance of Framework para 11 does not apply.
108. Given the outcome of the Framework para 202 balance, even if the
appellant’s best position on the weight currently carried by the relevant policies
of the development plan were to be adopted, when undertaking the s38(6)
planning balance there would be insufficient additional weight in favour of the
Appeal B development to outweigh the harm to the two heritage assets in
question and the associated development plan conflict. Accordingly, the
Appeal B scheme does not represent sustainable development in the terms of
the Framework and the relevant reserved matters details do not warrant
approval.
Conclusions
109. For the foregoing reasons, therefore, Appeal A is allowed, subject to the
appended schedule of conditions, and Appeal B is dismissed.
G D Jones
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES2
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Chris Young of Kings Counsel Instructed by Matt Briant, Senior Planner,
Quod Limited
He called
Philip Grover BA(Hons) BTP Heritage / Design – Grover Lewis Associates
DipArch(Cons) MRTPI IHBC
Ben Pycroft BA(Hons) DipTP Housing Land Supply - Emery Planning
MRTPI
Barney Stringer BSc(Hons) School matters – Quod Limited
PGCert MSc FRSA
Rhona Barnfield BSc(Hons), School matters - The Howard Partnership
MA PGCE CBE Trust
Michael Olliff BA(Hons) School Design - Scott Brownrigg
DipArch RIBA BNA
John Turner BA(Hons) MRCIS Viability - Turner Morum LLP
Simon Britton RCIS School costs - Artelia UK
John Rhodes BA(Hons) MRCIS Planning – Quod Limited
OBE
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Charles Streeten, of Counsel Instructed by Legal and Democratic Services,
Guildford Borough Council
He called
Julia Bennett Smith Heritage – Chris Blandford Associates
BA(Hons) MA AIfA
Ian Johnson BSc(Hons) MA Design - Luken Beck MDP
DipUD MRTPI
Martin Miller BA(Hons) MPHIL Housing Land Supply - Terence O’Rourke Ltd
MRTPI
Sean Fishlock MBA MCIOB School Delivery/Costing - Berkeley Research
MCICES MRICS Group
Andrew Jones BSc MRICS Viability - BPS Chartered Surveyors
Nigel Jarvis BA(Hons) MSc Planning – Luken Beck MDP
MRTPI
FOR EFFINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL: PTO
2 Additionally, Matt Briant of Quod Limited, and David Gilchrist and Heidi Perrin, both of Berkeley Homes,
contributed to the conditions / planning obligations session
FOR EFFINGHAM PARISH COUNCIL:
Scott Stemp, of Counsel Instructed by Effingham Parish Council
He called3
Julie Iles School Places - former Surrey County Council
Ward Councillor and Cabinet Member for All
Age Learning
Pidwell BA(Hons) DipArch Sustainability Issues – Shepheard Epstein
RIBA MAPM FRSA APS Hunter
Liz Hogger BSc(Hons) BA MSc Planning – Effingham Parish Council
DIC ARCS
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Rev Mandy MacVean Rector of the Parish of Effingham with Little
Bookham, responsible for St Lawrence Church,
Effingham and All Saints Church, Little Bookham
Chairman of the Effingham Residents
Vivien White Association
3 Although he produced a proof of evidence on Financial Viability, Perry Stock was not called to give evidence. His
written evidence and supporting documents have nonetheless been taken into account in my decisions
APPEAL A - REF APP/Y3615/W/22/3298341 - SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS:
Full Planning Permission
1. The development hereby permitted in detail shall be begun before the
expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted in detail shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans:
• 01023C_S01 Site Location Plan
• 01023C_MP02 Illustrative Masterplan
• 01023C_S02 Site Sections - Sheet 2
• 01023C_S03 Site Sections - Sheet 3
• 01023C_S04 Site Sections - Sheet 4
• 01023C_S05 Site Sections - Sheet 5
• 01023C_001A Plot 1 - Elevations
• 01023C_001C Plot 1 - Plans
• 01023C_002A Plot 2 - Elevations
• 01023C_002B Plot 2 - Plans
• 01023C_003A Plot 3 - Elevations
• 01023C_003B Plot 3 - Plans
• 01023C_004A Plot 4 - Elevations
• 01023C_004B Plot 4 - Plans
• 01023C_005A Plot 5-6 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_005B Plot 5-6 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_006A Plot 5-6 - Plans 1
• 01023C_006B Plot 5-6 - Plans 2
• 01023C_007A Plot 7-8 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_007B Plot 7-8 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_008A Plot 7-8 - Plans 1
• 01023C_008B Plot 7-8 - Plans 2
• 01023C_009A Plot 9 - Elevations
• 01023C_009B Plot 9 - Plans
• 01023C_010A Plot 10 - Elevations
• 01023C_010B Plot 10 - Plans
• 01023C_011A Plot 11 - Elevations
• 01023C_011B Plot 11 - Plans
• 01023C_012A Plot 12 - Elevations
• 01023C_012B Plot 12 - Plans
• 01023C_013A Plot 13 - Elevations
• 01023C_013B Plot 13 - Plans
• 01023C_014A Plot 14 - Elevations
• 01023C_014B Plot 14 - Plans
• 01023C_015A Plot 15 - Elevations
• 01023C_015B Plot 15 - Plans
• 01023C_016A Plot 16 - Elevations
• 01023C_016B Plot 16 - Plans
• 01023C_017 Plot 17-18 - Elevations
• 01023C_018 Plot 17-18 - Plans
• 01023C_019A Plot 19-20 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_019B Plot 19-20 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_020A Plot 19-20 - Plans 1
• 01023C_020B Plot 19-20 - Plans 2
• 01023C_021A Plot 21 - Elevations
• 01023C_021B Plot 21 - Plans
• 01023C_022A Plot 22 - Elevations
• 01023C_022B Plot 22 - Plans
• 01023C_023A Plot 23 - Elevations
• 01023C_023B Plot 23 - Plans
• 01023C_024A Plot 24 - Elevations
• 01023C_024B Plot 24 - Plans
• 01023C_025A Plot 25-26 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_025B Plot 25-26 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_026A Plot 25-26 - Plans 1
• 01023C_026B Plot 25-26 - Plans 2
• 01023C_027A Plot 27 - Elevations
• 01023C_027B Plot 27 - Plans
• 01023C_028 Plot 29-30 - Elevations1
• 01023C_029 Plot 29-30 - Elevations1
• 01023C_030 Plot 29-30 - Plans
• 01023C_031A Plot 31-32 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_031B Plot 31-32 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_032 Plot 31-32 - Plans
• 01023C_033 Plot 33-34 - Elevations
• 01023C_034 Plot 33-34 - Plans
• 01023C_035A Plot 35 - Elevations
• 01023C_035B Plot 35 - Plans
• 01023C_036 Plot 36-39 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_037 Plot 36-39 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_038 Plot 36-39 - Plans
• 01023C_040 Plot 40-41 - Elevations
• 01023C_041 Plot 40-41 - Plans
• 01023C_042 Plot 42-47 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_043 Plot 42-47 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_044 Plot 42-47 - Plans 1
• 01023C_045 Plot 42-47 - Plans 2
• 01023C_048 Plot 48-53 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_049 Plot 48-53 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_050 Plot 48-53 - Plans 1
• 01023C_051 Plot 48-53 - Plans 2
• 01023C_054A Plot 54 - Elevations
• 01023C_054B Plot 54 - Plans
• 01023C_055A Plot 55 - Elevations
• 01023C_055B Plot 55 - Plans
• 01023C_056A Plot 56 - Elevations
• 01023C_056B Plot 56 - Plans
• 01023C_057A Plot 57 - Elevations
• 01023C_058B Plot 57 - Plans
• 01023C_058A Plot 58-59 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_058B Plot 58-59 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_059A Plot 58-59 - Plans 1
• 01023C_059B Plot 58-59 - Plans 2
• 01023C_060A Plot 60 - Elevations
• 01023C_060B Plot 60 - Plans
• 01023C_061A Plot 61 - Elevations
• 01023C_061B Plot 61 - Plans
• 01023C_062A Plot 62 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_062B Plot 62 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_062C Plot 62 - Plans
• 01023C_063A Plot 63 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_063B Plot 63 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_063C Plot 63 - Plans
• 01023C_064A Plot 64 - Elevations
• 01023C_064B Plot 64 - Plans
• 01023C_065 Plot 65-67 - Elevations
• 01023C_066 Plot 65-67 - Plans
• 01023C_068 Plot 68-69 - Elevations
• 01023C_069 Plot 68-69 - Plans
• 01023C_070 Plot 70-71 - Elevations
• 01023C_071 Plot 70-71 - Plans
• 01023C_072 Plot 72-79 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_073 Plot 72-79 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_074 Plot 72-79 - Plans 1
• 01023C_075 Plot 72-79 - Plans 2
• 01023C_080A Plot 80 - Elevations
• 01023C_080B Plot 80 - Plans
• 01023C_081A Plot 81-82 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_081B Plot 81-82 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_082 Plot 81-82 - Plans
• 01023C_083A Plot 83 - Elevations
• 01023C_083B Plot 83 - Plans
• 01023C_084 Plot 84-91 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_085 Plot 84-91 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_086 Plot 84-91 - Plans 1
• 01023C_086 Plot 84-91 - Plans 2
• 01023C_086 Plot 84-91 - Plans 3
• 01023C_092 Plot 92-94 - Elevations
• 01023C_093 Plot 92-94 - Plans
• 01023C_095 Plot 95-106 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_096 Plot 95-106 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_097 Plot 95-106 - Plans 1
• 01023C_098 Plot 95-106 - Plans 2
• 01023C_099 Plot 95-106 - Plans 3
• 01023C_107A Plot 107-108 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_107B Plot 107-108 - Elevations 2
• 01023C_108A Plot 107-108 - Plans 1
• 01023C_108B Plot 107-108 - Plans 2
• 01023C_109 Plot 109-110 - Elevations 1
• 01023C_110 Plot 109-110 - Plans
• 1581-002E Thornet Wood Community Open Space
• 1581-003D Residential Landscape Masterplan
• 1581-004E Village Green Landscape Plan
3. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the
implementation of a programme of archaeological work on the site in
accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Written Scheme of
Investigation.
4. No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. This shall:
a) Include measures for noise and vibration mitigation during each phase of
construction, together with plans to monitor noise and vibration during
construction;
b) Include details of lighting requirements during construction;
c) Include a Dust Management Plan to minimise dust and emissions including
an inventory and timetable of dust generating activities, emission control
methods and where appropriate air quality monitoring;
d) Measures on avoiding impacts to nesting birds during clearance of the site;
e) A plan showing habitat areas to be specifically protected during the works
and how they shall be protected (i.e. with fencing). This shall include the
15m buffer zone to the Ancient Woodland, the extent of the Ancient
Woodland can be seen in drawing 1581-002E;
f) Any necessary pollution protection methods; and
g) Information on the persons/bodies responsible for particular activities
associated with the method statement that demonstrate they are qualified
for the activity they are undertaking.
The CEMP measures shall be implemented and maintained for the course of the
development works.
5. No development shall commence until a Construction Transport Management
Plan (CTMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority, to include details of:
a) Parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors;
b) Loading and unloading of plant and materials;
c) Storage of plant and materials;
d) Programme of works (including measures for traffic management);
e) Provision of boundary hoarding behind any visibility zones;
f) HGV deliveries and hours of operation;
g) Vehicle routing such that HGVs access the site from the north along
Effingham Common Road at all times, and avoid the use of The Street,
Lower Road, Church Street, and Orestan Lane;
h) Measures to prevent the deposit of materials on the highway;
i) No HGV movements to or from the site shall take place between the hours
of 8.30 and 9.15 am and 3.15 and 4.00 pm;
j) Details of how the lay-up and waiting of HGVs associated with the
development in Lower Road, Orestan Lane, Effingham Common Road,
Church Street, Manorhouse Lane or The Street during these times (set out
in (i)) shall be discouraged; and
k) on-site turning for construction vehicles.
The CTMP measures shall be implemented and maintained for the course of the
development works.
6. No development shall commence until a Site Waste Management Plan has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that
demonstrates how waste generated from construction and excavation activities
would be dealt with in accordance with the waste hierarchy. The development
shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Site Waste
Management Plan which shall subsequently be kept up-to-date throughout the
development process in accordance with established methodology.
7. No development shall commence (excluding works for the site access) until
details of a woodland management plan have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include but not be limited
to details on exclusion zones, public access, root protection zones and details of
interpretation boards which provide information on the Ancient Woodland and
its management. The extent of the Ancient Woodland can be seen in
drawing 1581-002E. The approved details shall be implemented and thereafter
maintained as approved.
8. No development shall commence (excluding site preparation/ earthworks/
enabling works) until details of the design of a surface water drainage scheme
have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The design shall satisfy the Sustainable Drainage Systems Hierarchy
and be compliant with the national Non-Statutory Technical Standards for
SuDS, National Planning Policy Framework (2021) and Ministerial Statement on
SuDS (December 2014). The required drainage details shall include:
a) Evidence that the proposed drainage solution shall effectively manage the
1 in 30 & 1 in 100 (+40% allowance for climate change) storm events and
10% allowance for urban creep, during all stages of the development. The
proposed drainage solution shall follow the principles set out in the
approved drainage strategy. Associated discharge rates and storage
volumes shall be provided using a maximum discharge rate of 7.6 l/s;
b) Detailed drainage design drawings and calculations to include: a finalised
drainage layout detailing the location of drainage elements, pipe diameters,
levels, and long and cross sections of each element including details of any
flow restrictions and maintenance/risk reducing features (such as silt traps
and inspection chambers);
c) A plan showing exceedance flows (i.e. during rainfall greater than design
events or during blockage) and how property on and off site shall be
protected from increased flood risk;
d) Proposed point of discharge to public network, method of connection
(pumped or gravity) etc;
e) Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance regimes
for the drainage system; and
f) Details of how the drainage system shall be protected during construction
and how runoff (including any pollutants) from the development site shall
be managed before the drainage system is operational.
The development shall be built in accordance with the approved details and
thereafter maintained as approved.
9. No development shall commence until levels details including the existing and
proposed ground, finished floor, ridge height and hard surfaced areas levels, a
datum point and spot heights of the adjoining building(s) have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall be carried out in accordance with those approved levels.
10. No development shall take place until a finalised Arboricultural Method
Statement detailing all aspects of construction and staging of works) and a
finalised Tree Protection Plan, in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012,
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method
statement and no equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the
site for the purposes of the development until fencing has been erected in
accordance with the Tree Protection Plan. Within any area fenced in
accordance with this condition, nothing shall be stored, placed or disposed of
above or below ground, the ground level shall not be altered, no excavations
shall be made, nor shall any fires be lit. The fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved details, until all equipment, machinery and
surplus materials have been moved from the site.
11. No development (including demolition, site clearance and groundworks) shall
commence until, a Reptile Mitigation Strategy has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Strategy shall be
based on the recommendations within section 6 of Technical Annex 5 of the
Environmental Statement, Report Ref. DFA21024 (Derek Finnie Associates,
2021). All approved details shall be implemented in full prior to the first
occupation of the development (or in accordance with a timetable that has
previously been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority) and in
accordance with the Reptile Mitigation Strategy.
12. Prior to the commencement of development above the damp proof course
level, large scale plans to a scale of at least 1:20 shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for:
a) Fenestration details including depths of reveal, sections, mouldings, glazing
bars, trickle vents, materials, finishes and method of opening;
b) Pattern/header brickworks and pattern hanging tile work;
c) Headers and cills;
d) Balcony, access ramp and other balustrading, excluding the use of glass
and sheet materials;
e) Garage doors, including panelisation, glazed window and door within a door
(where practicable)
f) Porches;
g) Chimneys;
h) Roof verges and eaves including brick corbels;
i) Dormer windows;
j) Standing seams to metal roofs;
k) Fascias and soffits; and
l) Rainwater goods, vents and flues.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the plans approved by
the Local Planning Authority.
13. Prior to the commencement of development above the damp proof course
level, details and samples of the proposed external facing and roofing materials
and any hardstanding materials, including colour and finish, have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
samples.
14. Prior to the commencement of development other than the access and
groundworks, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority for the installation of a High Speed wholly Fibre broadband
To The Premises (FTTP) connection to each dwelling/building hereby approved.
Thereafter, the infrastructure shall be laid out in accordance with the approved
details at the same time as other services during the construction process and
be available for use on the first occupation of each dwelling where practicable
or supported by evidence detailing reasonable endeavours to secure the
provision of FTTP and alternative provisions that been made in the absence of
FTTP.
15. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, a Refuse
Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The Strategy shall include refuse collection and storage points. The
approved details shall be installed and made available for use before the first
occupation of the dwellings that they serve. Thereafter, the approved details
shall be retained for the lifetime of the development.
16. Prior to the commencement of development other than the access and
groundworks, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority for the layout of internal roads, footways and cycle routes,
including details of the following:
a) Visibility splays (including pedestrian inter-visibility splays) for all road
users;
b) Pram crossing points;
c) Any required signage; and
d) Road markings.
The approved details shall be implemented before the first occupation of the
development and all internal roads, footways and cycle routes shall remain
open and accessible to the public thereafter. There shall be no obstruction to
visibility splays between 0.6m and 2m high above ground level.
17. No development shall commence until a contaminated land remediation
scheme is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority, including details of the following:
a) Documentary proof together with a quality assurance certificate to show
that the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved
remediation strategy;
b) Post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the
required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together
with the necessary documentation detailing what waste material has been
removed from the site before the development hereby permitted is
occupied by any person not directly involved in constructing the
development.
The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
and maintained thereafter.
18. Prior to first occupation a plan indicating the positions, height, species (if
applicable), design, materials, and type of boundary treatment to be
implemented within and around the site, and a timetable for carrying out the
works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The boundary treatment(s) shall then be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and permanently maintained thereafter.
19. Prior to the first occupation of the development (or phased in accordance with
a scheme which is first to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority), a verification report carried out by a suitably qualified
drainage engineer shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This shall demonstrate that the drainage system has been
constructed in accordance with the approved scheme (or detail any minor
variations), provide the details of any management company engaged to
manage the drainage system and state the national grid reference of any key
drainage elements (surface water attenuation devices/areas, flow restriction
devices and outfalls) and confirm any defects have been rectified.
20. The development hereby approved shall accord with the approved plans
(drawing number 01023C_MP02 Rev_P01) for vehicles and cycles to be parked
and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward
gear, to be implemented before the first occupation of the dwellings that they
serve. Thereafter the parking and turning areas shall be retained and
maintained for their designated purposes.
21. Prior to first occupation, the secure, covered, lit cycle storage facilities shall be
laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans (drawing
numbers 01023C_G06 Rev_P01, No. 01023C_G07 Rev_P01, 01023C_G08
Rev_P01 & No. 01023C_097 Rev_P01) for cycles to be parked to serve the
blocks of flats within the site. Thereafter the cycle parking facilities shall be
maintained for their designated purpose.
22. Prior to first occupation of the dwellings or apartment blocks that they serve,
each of the proposed cycle parking spaces within garages and at least 20% of
cycle spaces within communal storage facilities shall be provided with an
electrical plug socket for the charging of electric bicycles, and maintained as
such thereafter.
23. Prior to first occupation of each of the proposed dwellings (flat or house) details
of fast charge sockets for electric cars (current minimum requirements – 7kw
Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated
supply) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved details shall be implemented before the first
occupation of the dwellings that they serve and maintained thereafter.
24. Prior to first occupation of the development, details of (i) where one electric car
club vehicle shall be provided on the site; (ii) how the car club shall be
promoted as part of sales and marketing of the development; and (iii) details
of membership offers to be provided for residents; for example, one year’s free
membership and some free drive time shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car club parking space shall be
provided with a fast-charge electric vehicle charging point (current minimum
requirement: 7kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230 v AC 32 amp single
phase dedicated supply) and nearby to accessible cycle parking facilities. The
car club space shall be provided in accordance with a timetable to be approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the car club space, vehicle and
facilities shall remain in place and operational for at least a period of five years
following the first provision of the car club. Thereafter, the demand for the car
club shall be reviewed through the Travel Plan monitoring process.
25. Prior to the first occupation of the development a Travel Plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in
accordance with the sustainable development aims and objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework, Surrey County Council’s “Travel Plans
Good Practice Guide”, and in general accordance with the 'Heads of Travel Plan'
document. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented in accordance with
a timetable to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Thereafter the Travel Plan shall be maintained and developed in line with the
approved timetable.
26. Prior to the first occupation of the development, the improvements to the
junction of Lower Road, Church Road and High Street in Great Bookham shall
be constructed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
27. Prior to the first occupation of the development, the capacity improvements to
the signalised junction of The Street, Guildford Road and Beech Avenue shall be
constructed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be in
general accordance with drawing number 2012009-05 of the Transport
Assessment (issue date 20 April 2021) and the junction controller shall be
updated to incorporate Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation technology
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
28. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted a landscape and
ecological management plan (LEMP), including long-term design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscaped
areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Depending on the time period between the completed ecological
surveys and the commencement of development activities, updated survey
works may be required prior to drafting this plan. The plan shall also include
the additional elements listed below:
a) Aims and objectives of the management plan;
b) Description of the ecological features of the site to be managed and habitat
condition to be achieved;
c) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management;
d) Details of maintenance regimes for each habitat type supported by a
detailed map
e) Timings of maintenance activities and ecological considerations;
f) Landscape maintenance for a minimum period of 10 years, including
timings, work programmes, replacements etc;
g) Details of the ecological enhancements;
h) Monitoring for and control of non-native invasive species;
i) Details of on-going ecological survey work to further shape the
Management Plan details of management responsibilities;
j) All native planting is to be of local provenance; and
k) Details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which long term
implementation of the plan shall be secured by the developer with the
management body responsible for its delivery.
The LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and
thereafter maintained.
29. Prior to first occupation, a water efficiency statement shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details
of water management measures that achieve a maximum water usage of
110 litres per person per day and prioritises demand reduction measures over
supply measures for each dwelling.
30. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, a plan showing the
location of the 11 Building Regulations ‘accessible and adaptable dwellings
M4(2) and the six Building Regulations M4(3)(2) wheelchair accessible
dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
31. Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted,
including works of demolition or preparation prior to building operations, shall
not take place other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 Mondays to
Fridays and between 0800 and 1330 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or
Bank / National Holidays.
32. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or
amending those Orders with or without modification) any garage or car barn
which has been approved with open sides, fronts or backs shall remain as such
in perpetuity and they shall not be further enclosed in full or in part at any
time.
33. Before the first occupation of the development a certificate demonstrating that
Secured by Design has been successfully achieved shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
34. All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out in the first planting
and seeding season following the occupation of the development or the
completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants
which, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become
seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority,
shall be replaced in the next available planting season with others of similar
size, species and number, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
35. The development hereby permitted shall be built in accordance with the
measures, processes and standards set out in the following documents:
• Energy Statement Rev B (prepared by Southern Energy Consultants, dated
28/02/2022).
• Supplementary Sustainability Statement (prepared by Berkeley Homes,
dated February 2022)
• Sustainable Specification and Procurement Policy (prepared by Berkeley
Group PLC, dated June 2017)
The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the
development and retained as operational thereafter.
36. Prior to the occupation of each completed building, a pressure test shall be
undertaken and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Where a pressure test does not meet the standards
proposed in the Energy Statement Rev B (prepared by Southern Energy
Consultants, dated 28/02/2022) (a maximum air leakage rate of
4m3/h.m2@50Pa) the building shall be brought up to standard prior to the
occupation of each completed building.
37. No above ground works shall take place (excluding ground works and
construction up to damp proof course and the construction of the access) until
a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan (to comply with 'Bats and Lighting in the
UK - Bats and Built Environment Series) has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include a
timetable for the implementation of the works. The development shall then be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Outline
38. The self-build units hereby permitted shall be begun either before the
expiration of two years from the date of this permission, or before the
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved
matters to be approved, whichever is the latter.
39. Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, hereinafter called
"the reserved matters" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority before any development begins on the site of the
self-build plots and the development shall be carried out as approved.
40. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority before the expiration of two years from the date of this
permission.
41. The outline development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the design parameters set out in pages 74-86 of the Design and Access
Statement as well as approved plans: 01023C_S01 P01 and
01023C_MP02 P01.


Costs Decision
Inquiry Held on 20-23 & 27-30 September and 4, 5 & 7 October 2022
Sites visit made on 3 October 2022
by G D Jones BSc(Hons) DipTP DMS MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 31st October 2023
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/W/22/3298341
• 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 [APPELLANT] for a partial award of costs
against Guildford Borough Council.
• The inquiry was, in part, in connection with an appeal against the refusal of planning
permission for development described as hybrid planning application for outline
planning permission (only access to be considered) for the erection of 4 self-build
dwellings on land at 408-410 Lower Road, Effingham following demolition of all existing
buildings; and full planning permission for the erection of 110 dwellings, with access,
parking, community assets, landscaping, and associated works.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. The Government’s Planning Practice Guidance states that irrespective of the
outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has
behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The application, the Council’s response and the applicant’s final comments were
all made in writing. Consequently, there is no need for the respective cases to
be repeated.
4. The application relates to the financial viability evidence. Criticism is made of
the Council’s evidence and conclusions relating to this matter, particularly the
evidence of its witnesses Mr Fishlock and Mr Jones. This includes in respect to
the number of pupils the school should cater for, the size of the school and the
treatment and inclusion of associated facilities, costings for the school and
facilities, and level of developer profit margin employed in the viability
assessment.
5. As set out in my appeal decision, notably at paras 38-47, 48-65 and 66-70
regarding the need for a new school, the design and costings for the planned
school and viability respectively, I disagreed with the Council’s approach and
conclusions on these matters in several significant regards. Nonetheless, these
were all matters of professional judgement. While I disagreed with many of
those judgements, they were, in my view, given reasonable explanation and
justification by both witnesses. Indeed, Mr Fishlock and Mr Jones were both
credible witnesses. The differences between the Council’s and appellant’s
evidence on these matters were, therefore, a consequence of varying
professional approach and opinion rather than being symptomatic of
unreasonable behaviour.
6. Accordingly, the Council’s case on this topic cannot fairly be said to have been
unreasonable, notwithstanding my own conclusions having regard to the wider
evidence before me. Moreover, while I note the applicant’s submissions
regarding how the Council’s evidence might have been prepared to fit with a
predetermined position rather than determining that position based on good
evidence, there is no substantiated evidence to support that view.
7. It would have been more helpful to the appeal process had the Council been
clearer about its case on this matter at an earlier stage. Nonetheless, it
appears to me that the appellant was reasonably able to deal with that
evidence in the run up to and during the Inquiry. This, I feel, is reflected in the
appeal outcome.
8. Taking all the above into account, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting
in unnecessary or wasted expense has not been demonstrated in this case and
that an award of costs is not justified.
G D Jones
INSPECTOR