Case Reference: 3359169

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 29 July 2025
Site visits made on 28 and 29 July 2025
by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 29 August 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/W/25/3359169
Land south of 70 Wrecclesham Hill, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the
Act) against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Waverley Borough Council.
• The application Ref is WA/2023/02741.
• The development proposed is erection of 26 dwellings (including 8 affordable) with formation of new
vehicular access from Wrecclesham Hill, area of open space, landscaping and associated
infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of
26 dwellings (including 8 affordable) with formation of new vehicular access from
Wrecclesham Hill, area of open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure
at Land south of 70 Wrecclesham Hill, Wrecclesham, Farnham, Surrey in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WA/2023/02741, subject to the
conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. It is the case that additional documentation1 and revised plans2 have been
submitted at appeal stage. These documents and plans – when taken together –
seek to ensure the delineation of the site’s red line boundary is consistently
illustrated and aim to address a number of the Council’s reasons for refusing
planning permission. For example, clarity with respect to anticipated further
ecology/protected species surveys has been provided, pedestrian connection
points at the site’s eastern boundary are now included, and a Local Area of Play
(LAP) has been added to a confined area of on-site open space formerly intended
to be grassed. Further, amendments to the detailed design of Block 14-18 have
been made whereby small rises to eaves and ridge heights in conjunction with new
south-facing dormers offer the opportunity for the roof spaces of three units to
accommodate bedrooms and thus two-bedroomed units to comprise part of the
mix of on-site affordable homes.
3. I am conscious that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme.
However, the additional documentation and revised plans incorporate what can be
fairly interpreted to be minor alterations that – when considering the scheme as a
1 including: Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement, referenced SIG23982aia_ams, dated 2 July 2024; Ecology
Position Statement, dated 4 April 2025
2 including: SL.01 Rev E; HB.A.p Rev C; HB.A.e Rev C; SS.01 Rev C; AHL.01 Rev D; PAL.01 Rev D; RCL.01 Rev D; BDML.01
Rev D; SIG23982 10 Rev C; SIG23982 11 Sheet 1 Rev C; SIG23982 11 Sheet 2 Rev C; SIG23982 11 Sheet 3 Rev C; SIG23982
12 Sheet 1 Rev A; SIG23982 12 Sheet 2 Rev A; SIG23982 12 Sheet 3 Rev A
whole – do not result in a proposed development that is materially different to that
considered by the Council at planning application stage. I am thus satisfied that
no party with a potential interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced by the
additional documentation and revised plans being accepted for consideration.
4. A planning obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Act (the legal agreement) is
before me. This is dated 20 August 2025 and is signed by the appellant, relevant
landowners, and the Council. The legal agreement contains various provisions
related to: affordable housing; a management plan for the site; the provision and
subsequent management of a Local Area of Play (LAP), open space, sustainable
urban drainage, and estate roads and footpaths; self-build and custom
housebuilding; and contributions towards Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace
(SANG) and Strategic Access Management and Mitigation (SAMM). I shall return
to the legal agreement later in this Decision.
Main Issues
5. As a consequence of the additional documentation and revised plans that have
been accepted as well as the legal agreement’s preparation, the Council has
confirmed it does not wish to defend its second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh
and eighth reasons for refusing planning permission. I shall draft the appeal’s
main issues on this basis, whilst recognising – with respect to Special Protection
Areas (SPAs) – the relevant statutory duties that apply under the Habitat
Regulations.
6. The main issues are:
• The effect upon the character and appearance of the area having regard to
relevant provisions of the development plan, including consideration of the
effect upon on-site trees; and
• The effect upon relevant SPAs.
Reasons
Character and appearance
7. The site is comprised of an undeveloped parcel of land that sits adjacent to
Wrecclesham Hill (the highway), a busy classified route. As situated outside of
(albeit adjacent to) the relevant Built Up Area Boundary, the site comprises
Countryside beyond the Green Belt as defined under the terms of the Waverley
Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites (February 2018) (the LP).
In addition, the site makes up part of an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)
as also designated via the LP and thus comprises part of a valued landscape
under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the
Framework).
8. The northern part of the site is formed of the southernmost portion of an ancient
woodland and other well-established planting is in place to other parts of the site,
including along its front and side boundaries. Meanwhile, much of the site’s local
surroundings, including a grassed field to the immediate west, is made up of
undeveloped agricultural land. Despite these inherently rural and green
influences, there is a residential presence to the rear (north) of the site and
commercial development exists beyond intervening planting to both the east of the
site and to the opposite southern side of the highway. It is noteworthy that land to
the east is allocated for housing development (with approximate capacity for 20
dwellings) under Policy FNP14 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (April 2020)
(the FNP).
9. At a county level, the site falls within the West Farnham Open Greensand Hills
Landscape Character Area, the key characteristics of which include an undulating
topography and a mix of arable/pastoral fields and woodland blocks. At a local
level, under the Farnham Landscape Character Assessment (August 2018)
(the FLCA), the site falls within the Holt Hillside Character Area (the HHCA), the
key characteristics of which include a greensand ridge and associated valley
sides, woodland blocks, small fields in pasture, and a relationship with the edge of
Farnham. The appeal site and its immediate surroundings, exhibit a landscape
character that is broadly reflective of the typical characteristics of the character
areas within which the site falls.
10. The HHCA is adjudged, through the FLCA, to have ‘Medium’ landscape sensitivity
and a ‘Medium’ landscape value. These gradings are influenced by factors that
include some disturbance as a consequence of local quarry works, the presence of
the adjacent settlement (albeit often exhibitive of soft, low-density, and well-
defined edges), and the sense of enclosure that tends to be provided by
established planting which offers a strong landscape structure and some potential
for mitigation in the event development be brought forward.
11. To my mind, consistent with the findings of the FLCA with respect to the HHCA
taken as a whole, the site and its immediate surroundings, even though situated
within the AGLV and accommodating areas of ancient woodland, can be fairly
considered to have moderate sensitivity and a medium landscape value.
Moreover, notwithstanding the undoubted strong contribution the well-planted site
in question makes to the rural setting of Wrecclesham, it does not display out-of-
the-ordinary scenic qualities and can be experienced in the context of built
influences – most particularly to the east. Further, the site’s well-enclosed nature
and a prevalence of woodland areas and boundary trees/hedgerows in the general
locality are factors that considerably limit the range and extent of its visual
envelope.
12. The proposal is centred upon the delivery of 26 dwellings of typically two-storey
height to be served by a new vehicular access. It is noteworthy that a buffer to the
ancient woodland would be retained whilst a number of tree specimens of often
moderate to high value (as surveyed) would be safeguarded, including wherever
possible along the site’s highway frontage. It is also relevant that a well-
established hedgerow – albeit falling outside of the appellant’s control – runs
alongside the site’s western boundary and would not be impacted by the proposal.
13. Even so, as was readily apparent upon inspection, a widespread removal of on-
site planting inclusive of a range of well-established specimens of size and value –
that in some instances are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order3 not yet
confirmed – would be necessitated. These removals would include, but not be
limited to, selected Yew trees sited proximate to the highway, multiple tree groups
positioned adjacent to the site’s eastern boundary, and a number of mature
specimens located along the western boundary. These western trees include one
large Ash that has been surveyed to be of high quality – glimpses of which are
3 Tree Preservation Order (No.07/25)
available from the highway. In this context, the site’s sylvan character would be
noticeably eroded.
14. The proposed development’s most pertinent visual effects would be from close-
range vantage points including positions taken in either direction (east and west)
along the highway. These include from a nearby point to the east where the
highway connects to a public right of way that runs a north-south axis. It is
inevitable that the new-build development proposed, especially when considered
in conjunction with the tree losses intended, would fail to fully safeguard the
verdant and rural character of available views. This finding, given the positioning
of intended retained tree cover, would be most applicable to available views from
the east.
15. However, in-part owing to the constrained visual envelope applicable to the site,
the positions of neighbouring developments, the softening influence of established
planting to be retained under supervision and in accordance with a robust and
comprehensive Arboricultural Method Statement4, and the anticipated mitigative
implications of new soft landscaping that is proposed, the scheme would be
experienced as a somewhat discreet and reasonably well-contained excursion into
the countryside. This would be particularly so once new on-site planting
establishes and matures and the inevitable future domesticating/urbanising
influence of allocated residential development to the east ultimately materialises.
16. For the above reasons, unacceptably significant adverse landscape or visual
impacts would be avoided. However, it is inevitable that the proposal, which
involves the loss of greenfield land, a considerable number of tree removals, and
major development in an edge-of-settlement location adjacent to a well-used
entry/egress point to/from Wrecclesham, would cause meaningful harm, at a not
inconsequential level, to the character and appearance of the site and its
immediate surroundings. For the avoidance of doubt, I have had regard to the
site’s AGLV location when deliberating the scheme’s harm in this sense.
17. The proposal conflicts with Policies RE1, RE3 and TD1 of the LP, Policy DM15 of
the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development
Management Policies (March 2023) (the LP2) and Policies FNP1 and FNP10 of
the NP in so far as these policies set out that the intrinsic character and beauty of
the countryside will be recognised and safeguarded and that new development
shall protect and sensitively incorporate natural features such as trees and hedges
within the site.
18. For the avoidance of doubt, whilst not decisive to the outcome of this appeal, I do
not identify material conflict with Policy SP2 (Spatial Strategy) of the LP in part due
to the land in question not being of the highest amenity and landscape value (as
required by the policy) even though located within the AGLV. This is without
prejudice to any alternative approach taken by different Inspectors on schemes
elsewhere.
SPAs
19. The site lies within the defined zones of influence of the Thames Basin Heaths
Special Protection Area (TBHSPA) and the Wealden Heaths Phase I Special
Protection Area (WHSPA), such that I must have regard to The Conservation of
4 ref: SIG23982aia_ams
Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). These regulations require
that, where the project is likely to have a significant effect on (a) European site(s)
(either alone or in combination with other plans or projects), the competent
authority must make an appropriate assessment of the implications of the project
in view of relevant conservation objectives. For the purposes of this appeal, I am
the competent authority.
20. The TBHSPA is comprised of a network of heathland sites which are designated
for their ability to provide a habitat for the internationally important bird species of
woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. The TBHSPA was designated in 2005
due to research at the time indicating that recreational pressure was having a
detrimental impact upon these bird species, which are ground-nesting. Based on
the site’s proximity to the TBHSPA, the impact of the proposed development would
lead to a likely significant adverse effect on the TBHSPA through an increased
local population and associated recreational activity.
21. The Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Review
2016 (updated 1 April 2025) (the TBHSPAAS) sets out a two-pronged approach to
avoiding likely significant effect on the TBHSPA, which consists of the provision of
SANG, to attract people away from the TBHSPA, and SAMM measures to reduce
the effect of people who visit the TBHSPA. The legal agreement secures
contributions that are in line with the revised per-person contribution tariffs set out
in the TBHSPAAS and the payment of these contributions to the Council prior to
the commencement of development should planning permission be granted.
22. The legal agreement also places covenants upon the Council to spend or apply
said contributions in accordance with the TBHSPAAS. In view of spare SANG
capacity and a range of different improvement/management initiatives that have
been developed and formalised, I am content that adequate assurances are in
place to ensure that necessary mitigation and avoidance measures would be
implemented expediently should planning permission be granted.
23. The WHSPA is also comprised of lowland heathland habitats that support
endangered ground-nesting bird species – namely woodlark, nightjar and Dartford
warbler. The proposal, owing to its proximity to the WHSPA, would – through
increased recreational pressure – have a likely significant effect on the WHSPA. A
publicly accessible document5 prepared by the Council which helps to inform
decision-making confirms that, where proposals fall within the defined zones of
influence of both the TBHSPA and the WHSPA, mitigation should be provided in
line with the TBH approach. Moreover, there is no need to double the mitigation
requirement. Natural England has at appeal stage, in its role as statutory nature
conservation body, confirmed its acceptance to this approach.
24. For the above reasons, the proposal would mitigate its impacts upon both the
TBHSPA and the WHSPA. Thus, I am satisfied that the development would not
adversely affect the integrity of these SPAs. The proposal therefore accords with
Policies NE1 and NE3 of the LP and relevant provisions of the Framework, in so
far as these policies require no significant adverse effects on the ecological
integrity of SPAs and the provision of adequate mitigation measures.
5 ref: Waverley Planning FAQ, November 2020
Other Matters
25. The Framework sets out that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of
irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees)
should be refused, unless wholly exceptional reasons apply and a strategy for
suitable compensation exists. The scheme is respectful of the site’s ancient
woodland, which is located across its northern portion, in the sense that the
proposed layout incorporates a 15 metre buffer accommodating a mix of
established trees intended to be retained. Even so, it raises concern that a not
inconsequential area of proposed grassland, as depicted upon the submitted
landscape proposals, is intended to be seeded in conjunction with the retention of
the aforementioned trees to the fringe of the ancient woodland.
26. Moreover, as was readily apparent upon inspection, the seeding of grass at the
extent proposed would necessitate the loss of considerable understory – an
integral woodland component that supports regeneration. Whilst I acknowledge
that accessible on-site spaces have a role to play in ensuring the achievement of
high-quality development and healthy communities, it is important for the purposes
of conserving the natural environment to ensure that no loss or deterioration of
ancient woodland and/or ancient or veteran trees occurs as a result of
development.
27. With the above in mind, a planning condition would be reasonable and necessary
to impose in the event the appeal be successful that requires the extent of the
proposed grassland area in question to be revisited. Moreover, on the basis that
the proposed grassland in this particular part of the site is either removed or
noticeably reduced, I am suitably satisfied that no loss or deterioration of ancient
woodland would occur as a consequence of the scheme. This is particularly so
when noting that relevant ongoing management provisions are secured via the
legal agreement, as discussed further below.
28. Concerns have been raised that there could be inconsistencies with respect to
trees designated for retention when different submitted plans are compared and
that several mature trees may not have been plotted via the tree survey work
undertaken. However, as confirmed at the Hearing, the main parties are content
that the tree-related plans/information for determination is accurate and consistent.
Moreover, following my own on-site inspection, I am satisfied that the Tree
Protection Plan6 provides a suitably accurate and representative account of the
individual trees and tree groups intended to be either removed or
retained/protected.
29. In addition, concerns have been raised by an interested party that cumulative
growth in Wrecclesham shall place strains upon local infrastructure. However, as
confirmed in the Council’s Officer Report, the development shall be subject to a
Community Infrastructure Levy used to fund infrastructure in the Borough needed
to support new development (including with respect to education and health
facilities).
30. Further, concerns have been raised that direct overlooking from proposed Plot 13
would be to the detriment of the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring residential
occupiers to the north. Plot 13 would be served by two rear-facing first-floor
bedroom windows, and some intervening planting is intended to be removed.
6 ref: SIG23982-03
However, having factored in the proposed setback positioning of Plot 13 relative to
the site’s northern boundary, the suitably generous separation distance to
neighbouring built form that would be achieved, and the opportunity that would
avail to secure boundary treatment details via condition in the event the appeal be
successful, I am satisfied that no undue loss of privacy would result from the
scheme. Further, on the basis of new perimeter landscaping that is proposed and
the opportunity to secure boundary treatment details via condition, there is no
reason to consider that any undue loss of residential privacy would result as a
consequence of obtainable views from publicly accessible areas on site.
31. For the avoidance of doubt, I am content that the proposal does not conflict with
Policy FNP14 (Housing Site Allocations) of the FNP. Moreover, the site is not
allocated for development (such that it is not a policy of direct relevance to the
proposal before me) and the scheme would not prejudice the future policy-
compliant delivery of the allocated site to the east. As a further point of clarity, I
am satisfied that no material conflict would ensue with Policy FNP11 (Preventing
Coalescence) of the FNP on the basis that the scheme would not clearly lead to
increased coalescence between Rowledge and Wrecclesham.
Planning Balance
The presumption in favour of sustainable development
32. It is common ground between the main parties that the Council cannot currently
demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Accordingly, the
policies most important for determining the scheme are deemed out-of-date and –
as the policies of the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular
importance do not provide a strong reason for refusing planning permission – the
presumption in favour of sustainable development is engaged. It is also common
ground that the FNP is now of an age (in excess of five years since being made)
that does not engage paragraph 14 of the Framework.
33. For decision making the presumption in favour of sustainable development means
that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing
so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed
against the Framework’s policies taken as a whole. This is, as set out in the
Framework, whilst having particular regard to key policies for directing
development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-
designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.
Adverse impacts
34. In terms of the scheme’s adverse impacts, I have identified conflicts with
Policies RE1 and RE3 of the LP, DM15 of the LP2, and Policies FNP1 and FNP10
of the FNP. These are policies that exhibit broad consistency with the Framework
in so far as it seeks to: protect and enhance valued landscapes, recognise the
intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and ensure existing trees are
retained wherever possible.
35. I note that Policy FNP10 supports development outside of the Built Up Area
Boundary in only specified circumstances where various criteria are met in full.
However, in circumstances where the policies most important for determination are
deemed out-of-date as a consequence of the housing supply situation in the
Borough, the site’s position outside of the Built Up Area Boundary (a boundary that
has acted to restrict housing delivery) is not decisive to my considerations. Even
so, for reasons that are set out above and having considered the effect upon
existing on-site trees, I attach considerable weight to the harm that would be
caused by the scheme to the character and appearance of the area.
36. It has been suggested by an interested party that, in the event the appeal be
successful and planning permission be granted, a precedent could be set for
allowing other housing developments beyond the Built Up Area Boundary.
However, it is my responsibility to consider the proposal that is before me upon its
own individual merits in light of the specific site and case circumstances to hand at
this point in time. It thus follows that there is no clear reason to consider that any
possible future development proposal elsewhere would necessarily be looked
upon favourably by the relevant decision-maker as a consequence of this
Decision.
Scheme benefits
37. The proposal involves the creation of 26 additional housing units in a location
relatively well-served by facilities and services within a local authority area where
the housing land supply level currently sits at 1.28 years. This represents a
chronic shortfall when compared to the minimum five-year supply threshold
endorsed by the Framework. Further, an identifiable supply shortfall across the
Borough has, I understand, been very longstanding. In such circumstances, the
additional dwellings would make a meaningful and important contribution to the
supply-deficit and attract very significant weight as a public benefit.
38. Further, the policy-compliant delivery of 30% affordable homes and one self-build
unit as part of the housing to be developed would promote the delivery of distinct
social benefits that carry significant weight. In addition, there would be job
creation during the construction phase and increased household spending
generated once occupied which are benefits that attract limited weight. Moreover,
the scheme’s benefits would be very significant when assessed in cumulative
terms and attract substantial weight.
Final Balance
39. Having considered the adverse impacts and benefits of the scheme before me, I
conclude that the adverse impacts identified, comprising considerable harm to the
character and appearance of the area and associated conflict with the
development plan, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
proposal’s substantial benefits when assessed against the Framework’s policies
taken as a whole whilst having particular regard to key policies as presented
above. Thus, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in
the Framework, applies.
40. Therefore, notwithstanding identifiable conflict with relevant development plan
policies, there are material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate
that the proposal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the
development plan in this instance.
Legal Agreement
41. The legal agreement secures the aforementioned on-site provision of eight
affordable housing units (a mix of five Social Rented units and three Shared
Ownership units, and a mix of 1-bed, 2-bed and 3-bed units) in line with the
requirements of Policy AHN1 of the LP, which requires a minimum of 30%
provision and the mix of dwelling types/sizes and tenure split to reflect identified
housing needs. The legal agreement also secures the on-site provision of a single
self-build/custom-build plot to be located and marketed in accordance with a
scheme to be agreed. There is thus satisfactory compliance with Policy DM36 of
the LP2 in so far as it sets out an expectation for at least 5% of dwelling plots to be
made available for sale to self or custom builders.
42. A management plan to ensure the effective ongoing management (by a
management company) of on-site areas/features that comprise ancient woodland,
areas of open space, the LAP, the sustainable urban drainage system, and estate
roads and footpaths is secured, alongside covenants to ensure the
appropriate/timely initial installation of such features where relevant. SANG and
SPA contributions are also secured, under the terms discussed in my reasoning
with respect to this appeal’s second main issue.
43. I am satisfied that the various contributions and provisions secured through the
legal agreement would be necessary to make the development acceptable in
planning terms, would be directly related to the development, and be fairly and
reasonably related in scale and kind.
Conditions
44. A list of draft planning conditions was worked upon by the parties in advance of the
Hearing. Following further discussion at the event, I have considered the
conditions against advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As a
result, I have made minor amendments to the list for consistency and clarity
purposes and added conditions related to planting and boundary treatments. Pre-
commencement conditions have only been applied where agreed to by the
appellant and where necessary to guide initial works on site. In the interests of
certainty, a condition setting out the approved plans is required.
45. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area, conditions
requiring full details of external facing materials, finished levels, and boundary
treatments are reasonable and necessary to impose. For the same reason, it is
necessary to condition that development is undertaken in accordance with the
submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement and the
approved Tree Protection Plan, and that an Arboricultural Supervision Statement
be agreed. For the avoidance of doubt, the levels and boundary treatment
conditions is additionally in the interests of safeguarding the amenities of
neighbouring residents.
46. In the interests of highway safety, conditions are reasonable and necessary that
secure the provision and retention of access/garaging/parking/turning areas, the
submission of a Construction Management Plan (CMP), off-site footway
improvements (to involve the provision of a not insignificant stretch of new footway
along the northern side of Wrecclesham), and the provision of site access as
approved in conjunction with appropriate visibility splays. The CMP condition is
also in the interests of safeguarding neighbouring living conditions as well as
protecting valuable habitat and protected species, whilst the footway
improvements condition is additionally in the interests of promoting sustainable
travel choices.
47. Also, in the interests of encouraging sustainable travel modes, conditions are
reasonable that ensure the provision of Sustainable Travel Information Packs for
new residents and appropriate facilities for the storage/charging of cycles/e-bikes.
Further, to ensure an energy-efficient form of construction, a condition is
reasonable that secures compliance with a submitted Energy Statement.
48. In the interests of protecting, retaining and/or enhancing biodiversity, conditions
are reasonable and necessary to secure that development is implemented in
accordance with the recommendations of a submitted Preliminary Ecological
Assessment, that an update site walkover and associated report materialise in the
event development does not commence before the next active wildlife survey
season, and that further assessments/surveys take place prior to development
commencing with specific respect to dormice and bats.
49. To guard against flood risk and in the interests of promoting the appropriate
management of surface water, a condition is reasonable and necessary that
secures the details, implementation and subsequent retention of a surface water
drainage scheme. The main parties agreed at the Hearing that it would be
reasonable for the maximum discharge rate stated in the condition to be amended
to align with the existing greenfield run-off rate as estimated and set out within the
submitted Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (February 2023).
50. In the interests of minimising risks to human health, conditions are necessary to
ensure that potential contamination (including any unexpected contamination
encountered during the construction phase) is properly investigated and
remediated as required. A further condition requiring the implementation of a
programme of archaeological work is reasonable to ensure the archaeological
interest of the site is suitably investigated and recorded.
51. As discussed above, in the interests of guarding against any possible loss or
deterioration of ancient woodland and of promoting healthy communities via the
provision of acceptable open space, a condition to obtain clarification of intentions
for planting/seeding upon land in a specific location to the fringe of the ancient
woodland and to the northwest of the LAP is reasonable and necessary.
Conclusion
52. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed such that planning permission
is granted subject to conditions.
Andrew Smith
INSPECTOR
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than
the expiration of three years from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: LP.01 Rev A; HB.A.p Rev C; HB.A.e Rev C;
HT.2B-1.p Rev A; HT.2B-1.el Rev A; HT.2B-2.p Rev A; HT.2B-2.el Rev A;
HT.3B-1.p Rev A; HT.3B-1.el Rev A; HT.3B-2.p Rev A; HT.3B-2.el Rev A;
HT.3B-3.p Rev A; HT.3B-3.el Rev A; HT.3B-4.p Rev A; HT.3B-4.el Rev A;
HT.3B-5.p Rev A; HT.3B-5.el Rev A; HT.3B-6.p Rev A; HT.3B-6.el Rev A;
HT.4B-1.p Rev A; HT.4B-1.el Rev A; HT.4B-2.p Rev A; HT.4B-2.el Rev A;
HT.4B-3.p Rev A; HT.4B-3.el Rev A; HT.4B-4.p Rev A; HT.4B-4.el Rev A;
HT.4B-5.p Rev A; HT.4B-5.el Rev A; SL.01 Rev E; SS.01 Rev C; GAR.01 Rev A;
GAR.02 Rev A; CP01.pe Rev A; AHL.01 Rev D; PAL.01 Rev D; RCL.01 Rev D;
BDML.01 Rev D; SIG23982 10 Rev C; SIG23982 11 Sheet 1 Rev C;
SIG23982 11 Sheet 2 Rev C; SIG23982 11 Sheet 3 Rev C;
SIG23982 12 Sheet 1 Rev A; SIG23982 12 Sheet 2 Rev A;
SIG23982 12 Sheet 3 Rev A; SIG23982-03; 020.0807-0006 Rev P01;
020.0807-0003 Rev P02.
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement Ref:
SIG23982aia_ams (ACD Environmental, 2 July 2024) and the approved Tree
Protection Plan Ref SIG23982-03, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The contents of an Arboricultural Supervision
Statement (ASS), to incorporate provisions for fortnightly supervision and
photographic evidence, together with the details of the arboriculturist to produce
the document, shall be confirmed and agreed in writing at a pre-commencement
meeting (i.e. to be held prior to any site clearance works being undertaken) to be
attended by relevant and suitably qualified representatives of the Council and the
developer. The final ASS shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby
permitted.
4) No development shall take place until full details of the finished levels, above
ordnance datum, of the ground floors of each of the dwellings hereby permitted in
relation to existing ground levels within the site by means of spot heights and
cross-sections 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.
5) No development shall take place, including any demolition or site clearance
works, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Plan shall be
adhered to throughout the demolition/construction period. The Plan shall provide
for the following measures and only the approved details shall be
implemented/adhered to:
• 24-hour emergency contact number;
• Hours of operation;
• Parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (including measures to
be taken to ensure satisfactory access and movement for existing
occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction);
• Routes for construction traffic;
• Locations for loading/unloading and storage of plant, waste and
construction materials;
• Method of waste disposal;
• Method of dust suppression;
• Method of preventing mud being carried onto the highway;
• Measures to protect vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians);
• Any necessary temporary traffic management measures;
• Arrangements for turning vehicles;
• Arrangements to receive abnormal loads or unusually large vehicles;
• Methods of communicating the Construction Management Plan to staff,
visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses;
• Any necessary ancient woodland protection measures.
6) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors
in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in
accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation to be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7) No other development shall take place until the vehicular and pedestrian access
to Wrecclesham Hill as depicted upon approved plan Ref 020.0807-0003 Rev
P02 has been constructed and provided with:
• A means within the site of preventing private water from entering the
highway;
• Visibility splays with a ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and a ‘y’ distance of 117
metres to the southwest of the access and 96 metres to the northeast.
Thereafter, the visibility splays shall be kept permanently clear of any
obstruction over 0.6 metres in height.
8) The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced (other than any
works to trees) 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 required drainage details shall include:
• Evidence that the proposed final solution will effectively manage the 1 in
30 (+35% allowance for climate change) and 1 in 100 (+45% allowance
for climate change) storm events and 10% allowance for urban creep,
during all stages of the development. The final 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 7.87 litres per second;
• 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
(silt traps, inspection chambers, etc);
• 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;
• Details of drainage management responsibilities and maintenance
regimes for the drainage system;
• 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 surface water drainage scheme shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details prior to the first occupation of any dwelling and shall thereafter
be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details for the
lifetime of the development.
9) No development shall take place, including any demolition or site clearance
works, until a presence / absence dormice survey has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
thereafter be carried out in accordance with any precautionary scheme of works,
compensation and/or mitigation measures identified in the survey.
10) No development shall take place, including any demolition or site clearance
works, until a Bat Preliminary Ground Level Tree Roost Assessment and, if
required, a presence/likely absence survey have been submitted to and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with any precautionary scheme of works, compensation
and/or mitigation measures identified in the Assessment and/or survey.
11) Notwithstanding that a ‘proposed grassland area’ is depicted upon the approved
landscaping plans (Ref SIG23982 11 Sheet 2 Rev C and SIG23982 11 Sheet 3
Rev C) in conjunction with existing trees to be retained to the northwest of the
LAP, full details of existing and proposed planting/seeding in this particular area
of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of development including any site clearance
works. The development shall be implemented and thereafter retained in
accordance with the approved details.
12) Prior to the commencement of development, other than that required to be
carried out as part of demolition or an approved scheme of remediation, the
following shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority:
• An investigation and risk assessment, in accordance with a scheme to
assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or
not it originates on the site. The investigation and risk assessment shall
be undertaken by a competent person as defined in Annex 2: Glossary of
the National Planning Policy Framework.
• If identified to be required, a detailed remediation scheme shall be
prepared to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by
removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other
property. The scheme shall include:
i. All works to be undertaken;
ii. Proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria;
iii. Timetable of works;
iv. Site management procedures.
The scheme shall ensure that the site shall not qualify as contaminated land
under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the
intended use of the land after remediation. The remediation works shall be
carried out in strict accordance with the approved scheme. The Local Planning
Authority shall be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the
remediation scheme works.
13) Upon completion of the approved remediation works, a verification report
demonstrating the effectiveness of the approved remediation works carried out
shall be completed in accordance with Condition 12 and shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval prior to the first occupation of any dwelling.
14) Following commencement of the development hereby permitted, if unexpected
contamination is found on site at any time, other than that identified in
accordance with Condition 12, the Local Planning Authority shall be immediately
notified in writing and all works shall be halted on the site. The following shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the
recommencement of works:
• An investigation and risk assessment, undertaken in the manner set out
under Condition 12 of this permission;
• Where required, a remediation scheme in accordance with the
requirements as set out under Condition 12;
• Following completion of approved remediation works, a verification
report, in accordance with the requirements as set out under
Condition 13.
15) Details of all external facing materials shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development above slab level.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
16) The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied unless and until
new footway connections along Wrecclesham Hill, and associated uncontrolled
dropped kerb crossing with tactile paving, have been constructed in accordance
with approved plan Ref 020.0807-0006 Rev P01.
17) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, written confirmation
of compliance with the submitted Energy Statement, produced by C80 Solutions
and dated July 2023, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority.
18) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a Sustainable
Travel Information Pack, to be produced in accordance with the sustainable
development aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and
Surrey County Council’s Travel Plans Good Practice Guide for Developers, shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
approved Sustainable Travel Information Pack shall be issued to the first-time
occupier of each dwelling prior to first occupation. The pack shall include:
• Details of local public transport services and the locations of rail stations
and local bus stops;
• Details of local car club and lift sharing schemes;
• Maps showing local walking and cycling routes and isochrone maps
showing accessibility to public transport, schools and local community
facilities;
• Information to promote the take-up of sustainable travel.
19) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be first occupied unless and until facilities for
the secure, lit and covered parking of bicycles to include a charging point with
timer for e-bikes have been provided within the dwelling in accordance with a
scheme to have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall thereafter be retained and
maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.
20) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, full details of
boundary treatments to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details and thereafter the boundary treatments
shall be retained as installed at all times.
21) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of
the Preliminary Ecological Assessment produced by Wychwood Environmental
Ltd and dated June 2022 together with subsequent survey updates.
Confirmation of the measures undertaken shall be submitted to and approved by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the first occupation of any dwelling on site.
22) If the development hereby permitted does not commence before the next active
wildlife survey season (May to September 2026), an update site walkover and
report shall be carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to any development commencing. The development
shall then be carried out in accordance with any precautionary scheme of works,
compensation and/or mitigation measures identified in the report.
23) The access, garaging, parking and turning areas as shown on approved plan
Ref SL.01 Rev E shall be constructed prior to first occupation of each dwelling to
which they relate and thereafter shall be maintained and kept available for such
purposes in perpetuity.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Charles Banner KC Counsel
Kevin Scott Managing Director, Solve Planning Limited
Rebecca Oattes Associate Planner, Solve Planning Limited
Andrew Cook Executive Director – Environment, Pegasus Group
Andrew Bigg Head of Arboriculture, ACD Environmental
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
David Jobbins Planning Consultant – Director, Luken Beck
Jack Adams Principal Arboricultural Officer
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE HEARING
• Copy of example Unilateral Undertaking related to a site at Dunsfold,
Godalming, dated 24 July, submitted via email by the Council
• Copy of Waverley Borough Council Authority Monitoring Report 2023-2024,
published May 2025, submitted via email by the Council
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED AFTER THE HEARING
• Updated draft legal agreement following discussion at the Hearing, submitted via
email by the appellant on 5 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s comments upon draft legal agreement
accompanied by further revised draft, submitted via email by the appellant on
11 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s request for any observations upon draft planning
conditions, submitted via email by the appellant on 18 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s request for any observations upon draft planning
conditions and the appellant’s 11 August 2025 response, submitted via email by
the Council on 18 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s request for observations from the relevant
statutory nature conservation body, submitted via email by Natural England on
20 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s request for observations in lieu of Natural
England comments, submitted via email by the appellant on 21 August 2025
• Completed legal agreement, dated 20 August 2025, posted by the Council and
submitted via email by the appellant on 21 August 2025
• Written response to Inspector’s request for observations in lieu of Natural
England comments, submitted via email by the Council on 27 August 2025