an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2013 by Simon Warder MA BSc(Hons) DipUD(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 April 2013 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/A/12/2184747 4-8 Dagden Road, Shalford, Surrey, GU4 8DD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Berkeley Homes (Southern) Ltd against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. The application Ref 12/P/00634, dated 6 April 2012, was refused by notice dated 7 September 2012. The development proposed is the erection of 5 residential dwellings (2 x 4 bed houses and 3 x 5 bed houses) with garaging and associated landscape works following demolition of existing buildings on site. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 5 residential dwellings (2 x 4 bed houses and 3 x 5 bed houses) with garaging and associated landscape works following demolition of existing buildings on site at 4-8 Dagden Road, Shalford, Surrey, GU4 8DD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 12/P/00634, dated 6 April 2012, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter 2. The appellant submitted revised plans 1 with its ground of appeal. These plans show the floor levels of plots 3 and 4 reduced by 75mm and 450mm respectively compared with the plans submitted with the application. The changes are primarily intended to address the effect of plots 3 and 4 on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Dagden Road. The submissions made by those occupiers include reference to the changes in the revised plans. The Council had the opportunity to comment on the revised plans in its statement. 3. I am satisfied that the revisions do not alter the substance of the proposal and that those directly affected have had the opportunity to comment. Therefore the revised plans have been taken into account in the determination of this appeal. 1 Plan numbers 1155 C201B, 1155 C202B, 1155 P201E and 1155 P202E. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate

Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are: whether the proposal complies with local plan policy on infill development within the defined settlement boundary; the effect of the proposal on the character of the area; the effect of the house on plot 4 on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Dagden Road. Reasons Infill Development 5. The site falls within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined in the Guildford Borough Local Plan (LP). However, policy RE2 allows for infilling in villages to the extent specified in policy RE3. That policy defines the settlement boundary for Shalford and allows infilling on land substantially surrounded by existing development for purposes including small scale housing developments appropriate to the scale of the settlement. 6. The appellants argue that LP policy RE3 has been overtaken by paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which allows for limited infilling in villages without reference to what surrounds the site. However, I note that the national policy in operation at the time that the policy was adopted 2 also referred to limited infilling without further qualification. It is to be expected that local plan policies provide more detail than national policy. Therefore, I consider the additional requirement in policy RE3 for infill sites to be substantially surrounded by existing development does not amount to inconsistency with the Framework, notwithstanding that the LP was adopted in 2003. 7. The occupiers of 2 Dagden Road (the objectors) contend that the site is not surrounded by existing development and, therefore, that the proposal does not accord with LP policy RE3. The objectors and the appellants have supplied barristers Opinions in support of their positions on the interpretation of this policy and the Council s solicitor has provided a legal of opinion 3. The key issue in dispute is the definition of existing development. The objectors consider that this means built development. The wording of this policy was clearly carefully considered at the Local Plan Inquiry. Nevertheless the Inspector took no view as to what might constitute adjoining development, seeing it as a matter to be determined on individual circumstances. 4 With this in mind, I consider it significant that the word built is not used in the policy to define surrounding existing development. Nor does it appear in that context in the supporting text for the policy at paragraphs 10.14 to 10.18 of the LP. 8. Moreover, based on what I saw travelling around the area, the character of the villages in the Green Belt to which the policy applies is such that potential sites are unlikely to be substantially surrounded built development in the sense of 2 Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts, paragraph 3.4, fourth bullet point. 3 Robert Walton (1 May 2012 and 21 June 2012) and Sasha White (28 November 2012) for the appellants. Hereward Phillpot (8 November 2012) for the objectors. Jacqui Hughes (30 August 2012) for the Council. 4 Paragraphs 10.4.74 of the LP Inspector s Report. Page 2 of 9

having buildings abutting the majority of their boundaries. The built form of the villages is generally too loose knit with many houses sitting within large plots. The policy is clearly intended to allow some residential development of an appropriate scale (LP paragraph 10.17) and, therefore, it would frustrate the aims of the policy if the meaning of existing development was so tightly defined that otherwise suitable sites, which happened to be located in an area of dwellings with large gardens, were excluded from consideration. 9. The objectors argue that policy RE3 is a Green Belt policy and, consequently, that the reference to existing development can only sensibly refer to built development since this is what impacts upon openness. However, both PPG2 and the Framework allow limited infilling villages without reference to the nature of the surrounding development and LP paragraph 10.14 is clear that the settlement boundaries were defined to limit development to areas which would not impinge on the openness of the Green Belt. As such, rather than openness, it seems to me that this element of the policy is mainly concerned with the scale of infill development and its relationship with the character of the surrounding area. This approach is supported by LP paragraph 10.18. 10. The objectors have drawn my attention to an officer s report 5 and earlier appeal decision 6 for a site at Gomshall Lane, Shere. I have not been provided with the officer s report and therefore it is difficult to comment on it. Nevertheless, I recognise that the Inspector took existing development to be built development. It is not clear from the appeal decision letter what evidence was presented on this point, although the comment at the end of paragraph 5 of the decision letter suggests that the Inspector recognised that another interpretation of policy RE3 may be possible. Moreover, the appellant has referred to a number of other appeal decisions for proposals in locations where policy RE3 was applicable. The Inspectors in those cases did not consider it necessary to define existing development in the way suggested by the objectors. Therefore, whilst I recognise the need for consistency in decision making, for the reasons outlined above, I consider that the Gomshall Lane appeal decision should not be treated as the only source for the interpretation of existing development for the purposes of policy RE3. 11. The objectors have also made submissions on the meaning of substantially surrounded. However, all the parties accept that the words should be given their everyday meaning. 12. Turning to the appeal proposal itself, the site is essentially five sided and accommodates two detached houses which front onto the north side of Dagden Road. The east and south sides of the site abut 2 and 10 Dagden Road respectively, whilst the north side shares a boundary with 72 The Street. The gardens of these properties are well defined by fencing or hedges, are laid out and maintained as domestic gardens and accommodate the expected paraphernalia in the form of sheds and the like. As such, both functionally and visually, they clearly form an established and developed part of the settlement. Together with the Dagden Road frontage, they make up significantly more than half of the perimeter of the appeal site. Consequently, I consider that the site is substantially surrounded by existing development. 5 Application reference 11/P/02065. 6 Appeal reference APP/Y3615/A/04/1146762. Page 3 of 9

13. In initial correspondence the objectors also contended that the proposal would not constitute infill development since the houses behind the Dagden Road frontage would not fill a gap between existing buildings. However, the purposes set out in policy RE3 allow for small scale housing developments of an appropriate scale as well as development which fills a gap in an otherwise continuous frontage. It is evident from the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector s report that the former purpose could extend to modest redevelopments in depth and developments of backland 7. I consider that the appeal proposal falls within this definition of infill. Overall therefore, I conclude that the appeal proposal complies with LP policy RE3, subject to consideration of its effect on the character of the area. Character of the Area 14. The vicinity of the appeal site is typified by large, but fairly closely spaced, detached houses which give the area a suburban character. Whilst most houses have generous rear gardens, few, if any, are as extensive as the plots which make up the appeal site. The houses generally front directly onto the straight sections of Dagden Road. However, I noted that, at the bend close to the end of the road, numbers 21 and 23 depart from this pattern and are accessed off private drives. 15. With regard to the scale of development proposed, I saw that Shalford is a fairly substantial settlement with Dagden Road alone accommodating more than 30 houses. The village has a reasonable range of local facilities and good accessibility to public transport. In this context, I consider that a net increase of three houses would be in keeping with the scale of the locality. The resultant development density of 12.85 dwellings per hectare is typical of the range found locally 8. 16. The analysis in the Design and Access Statement shows that the scheme s plot ratio would be some 20%. Whilst this is slightly greater than the average for the surrounding area as a whole (16%), it is similar to a number of the other properties in the immediate vicinity. Moreover, the footprints of the proposed houses are comparable in size with others in the area. Whilst the proposed gardens may be smaller than others in the area, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal is deficient in indicators of overdevelopment such as the amount of external amenity space, parking and manoeuvring areas or that it would not provide adequate living conditions for future residents. The objectors concerns over the effect of potential extensions to the proposed houses can be dealt with by a condition withdrawing certain permitted development rights. Consequently, I consider that the scale of the proposal is appropriate to its surroundings. 17. I note the objectors concerns regarding potential overshadowing to plots 2 and 3 from the trees on the site s western boundary. However, the rear elevation of plot 2 is some 13m from the adjoining tree canopy line and plot 3 has west and north facing garden areas which separate the house from the tree line by distances of 5m and 8m respectively. I consider that these distances are sufficient to safeguard the living conditions of future occupiers and would not 7 Paragraph 10.4.63 of the LP Inspector s Report. 8 Appellant s statement Appendix 6: For example Sites B and C which are closest to the appeal site. Page 4 of 9

lead to undue pressure for the removal or reduction in height of the existing trees. 18. The closely spaced buildings along Dagden Road effectively screen views to most existing rear gardens including at the appeal site. Therefore, the fact that the garden areas of the proposed houses would, inevitably, be smaller than the existing gardens which make up the site would not significantly alter the character of the area. 19. The siting of the houses on plots 1 and 5 would follow the established building lines and spacing of buildings along Dagden Road and would be the proposal s most significant contribution to the street scene. The houses on plots 2, 3 and 4 would not front onto the road. However, they would be far less prominent in the street scene, being glimpsed between plots 1 and 5. Moreover, the existing houses at numbers 21 and 23 illustrate that there is some variation in the layout of buildings in the area. As such, I consider that the proposed layout would not be out of accord with the prevailing pattern of development in the area. 20. Dagley Lane and the boundary of the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) runs along the site s western boundary. The lane has a semi-rural character influenced by both the open countryside to the west and the presence of houses and rear gardens to the east. The proposal would bring two storey development closer to the lane. However, the scheme allows for significant existing planting, including the protected trees on the western boundary to be retained and supplemented. Therefore, whilst plots 2 and 3 in particular would be visible from the lane, views would be restricted to the roofs by the retained boundary embankment and would be filtered by planting. Consequently the proposal would leave the semi-rural character of the lane intact and would not materially affect the setting of the AGLV. Nor is there any substantive evidence to suggest that it would affect the setting the Area of Outstanding Natural beauty 21. Although part of the northern boundary of the site adjoins the Shalford Conservation Area, there is nothing to suggest that the proposal would materially affect the setting of the Area. 22. Taken as a whole therefore, I consider that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character of the area. As such, it would accord with LP policy G5(2) which requires new buildings to respect the scale, proportion and form of the surrounding environment and policy RE3 which, among other things, presumes against proposals which harm the character or appearance of the area. Living Conditions of the Occupiers of 2 Dagden Road 23. The house on plot 4 would be located, at its closest point, some 10m off the boundary with 2 Dagden Road and there would be no windows in elevation facing the neighbouring property. Plot 4 would be oriented slightly away from 2 Dagden Road and, at their closest, the two buildings would be separated by a distance of some 25m. Whilst I have not been made aware of any privacy standards applicable to the area, the separation distances set out above comfortably exceed those used in many comparable localities and I am Page 5 of 9

satisfied that the proposal would not lead to an unacceptable loss of privacy for the occupiers of number 2. 24. The floor level of plot 4 would be set at 41.35m compared with a ground level at the boundary with number 2 of around 40.68m. I accept that the slightly elevated position of the new house would increase its presence when viewed from the rear windows or garden of the neighbouring property. The house on plot 4 would be a substantial building which would, inevitably, change the westerly outlook for the occupiers of number 2. However, I consider that the separation distances outlined above, together with the filtering effect of the proposed boundary planting, would ensure that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact. 25. The proposed planting on the boundary with number 2 would give rise to some shadowing of part of the adjoining garden in late afternoon. However, it would affect a relatively small area and the use of deciduous species would reduce shading in the winter months when the sun is at its lowest. As such, I consider that the effect would be very limited. 26. Overall therefore, I find that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Dagden Road. Consequently, it would comply with LP policy G1(3) which seeks to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. Other Matters 27. There is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would lead to highway safety or convenience problems or that, with appropriate mitigation measures which can be secured by condition, it would adversely affect nature conservation interests. The site specific sustainability measures which were a concern of the objectors can also be addressed by condition. 28. Concern has been expressed locally regarding garden grabbing. The Framework excludes residential gardens from the definition of previously developed land and advises that Councils may wish to set out policies to resist the inappropriate development of gardens. However, it does not preclude development in gardens. I have not been made aware of any development plan policies on development in gardens and so the proposal would comply with this aspect of the Framework. 29. I note the misgivings regarding the local consultation exercise undertaken by the appellants. However there is nothing to indicate that the statutory consultation procedures were not followed. I have had regard to the objections lodged at the application and appeal stages and have determined the appeal on its planning merits. 30. I have already dealt with the relationship between LP policy RE3 and the Framework. There is nothing to indicate that the other local plan policies referred to above are in conflict with the Framework. Conditions 31. The Council has suggested a list of 18 conditions. The appellants argue that proposed condition 3 is unnecessary and unreasonable since the additional information it requires has already been provided. I agree to the extent that the survey information and slab levels have been provided. However more Page 6 of 9

detailed information on the proposed site levels is necessary in order to safeguard the character of the area. I will impose an accordingly amended condition. With amendments for clarity, I find that the other suggested conditions meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. 32. A condition specifying the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Conditions requiring samples of external materials and details of boundary treatments are required to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. A condition withdrawing permitted development rights for extensions or alterations to the houses and outbuildings within their curtilages is required for the same reason. In view of the site s setting, a condition withdrawing permitted development rights for the insertion of upper floor windows is required to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. 33. A condition to secure a scheme of tree protection works is necessary to safeguard the character of the area and a condition requiring mitigation measures to protect bats is required in the interests of nature conservation. A condition to secure and implement a construction method statement is necessary in the interests of highway safety and convenience. A condition to secure a scheme of noise control for construction plant, including any piling, is required to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. This condition combines the Council s suggested conditions 16 and 17. A condition specifying construction working times is necessary for the same reason. 34. Conditions to secure the implementation of the proposed access, parking and manoeuvring areas and the removal of the existing access points are necessary in the interests of highway safety. Conditions to secure and implement a scheme of sustainable energy use and the achievement of at least Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 are required in the interest of local and national policy objectives on sustainability. Conclusion 35. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be allowed. Simon Warder INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions attached to Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/A/12/2184747 4-8 Dagden Road, Shalford, Surrey, GU4 8DD 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1155 S201, 1155 S202, 1155 C201B, 1155 C202B, 1155 P201E, 1155 P202E, 1155 P203B, 1155 P210B, 1155 P211B, 1155 P212B, 1155 P213B, 1155 P214D, 1155 V202, 1155 V203, 1155 V204, 1155 V205 and L296/LA/01B. Page 7 of 9

3) Prior to the commencement of development, a drawing showing details of the proposed ground levels shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. 4) Prior to the commencement of development, details and samples of the proposed external materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples. 5) Prior to the commencement of development, details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter retained. 6) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended on 1st October 2008) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B, C, D or E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1995 Order (as amended on 1 st October 2008) shall be carried out. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended on 1st October 2008) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows or openings other than those shown on the approved plans shall be constructed at upper floor level in the side elevations of any of the houses hereby permitted. 8) Prior to the commencement of development or demolition, an arboricultural method statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. The erection of fencing for the protection of all trees on the site shall be undertaken in accordance with BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written approval of the local planning authority. 9) The development shall incorporate the mitigation measures set out in section 5 of the Bat Assessment Report dated July 2012 by the Ash Partnership. 10) Prior to the commencement of development or demolition, a construction method statement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The statement shall include details of parking for vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials; and storage of plant and materials. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved statement. 11) Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for the control of noise and exhaust emissions shall be submitted to, and approved in writing Page 8 of 9

by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall comply with BS5228 (parts 1 and 4) and include all fixed plant, including generators and any piling equipment, used during demolition and construction operations. All works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. 12) Works related to the construction of the development hereby permitted, including demolition or preparation works prior to building operations, shall not take place outside of the hours of 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday or 0800 to 1330 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or public holidays. 13) Before first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the proposed vehicular access to Dagden Road shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. 14) Before first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the parking and manoeuvring areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The areas shall be retained and used exclusively for parking and manoeuvring. 15) Before first occupation of the development hereby permitted, the existing redundant accesses from the site to Dagden Road shall be permanently closed and any kerbs, verge and footway reinstated in a manner to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 16) Prior to the commencement of development, details of (i) the predicted energy use of the development and (ii) the types of low or zero carbon technologies to be used shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved details shall demonstrate how the development will achieve at least a ten per cent reduction in carbon emissions. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 17) Before first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a final certificate of compliance and assessment report from an assessor accredited by the Building Research Establishment Limited demonstrating that the development has achieved, as a minimum, Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 (November 2011) shall be submitted to the local planning authority. Page 9 of 9