Appeal 6002172

The appeal is dismissed.

For brevity, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on:  the character and appearance of the area, with particular reference to protected trees and woodland,  the living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers; and,  biodiversity.

The appeal site is accessed from [address] and is a parcel of sloping land that can be found to one side of the residential development known as [site address] . The site is covered by shrubs and a number of mature woodland trees, some of which are protected. The rising topography of [site address] is characterised by contemporary style dwellings set in verdant surroundings with ancient woodland to the rear. The wider area is further typified by established residential dwellings facing the highway which are set at a lower level to the appeal site.

The proposal is to construct a two-storey dwelling with parking on the appeal site in similar materials to the surrounding built form in [site address] .

The proposed development would be located in an established residential area where the principle of development is accepted. While noting the Council’s concerns that the submitted plans are less than ideal, the development would nonetheless accord with the appearance and immediacy of nearby built form and be set back from the highway above [address].

That said, although the proposal would face away from the woodland area as it slopes to the top of [site address] , the development would be directly adjacent to mature trees in an area known as G4, which includes trees T11, T12, T13, and T15, which is protected by a confirmed Tree Protection Order1.

Therefore, whether any proposed works to the TPO trees on the appeal site to facilitate the development would be acceptable to the Council or not, including the removal of a Sycamore tree and a crown lift to a [name] tree, the residential use and proximity of the new dwelling would be likely to result in additional stress to the well-being of the remaining trees adjacent to the site. For example, the proposed building would encroach the [name] (RPAs) of at least some of the trees nearby.

Moreover, given the proposed high-level windows of the dwelling facing the woodland, shading as well as leaf-litter and bird detritus associated with the trees, it is very likely to encourage occupiers to seek future pruning/lopping works or removal of some trees whether protected or not. These activities would not only be likely to diminish the health of the trees but also their verdant qualities and attractive natural shape.

In addition, the protected Beech trees T19 and T20 would be felled in order to create 3 new parking spaces to reduce parking stress within [site address] following construction of the new dwelling. However, notwithstanding that the appellant argues that similar trees at [site address] have already been removed, the proposed parking spaces would be near to the site entrance leading from [address]. As such, the erosion of the dense tree environment at the highly prominent site access, which can be seen in both directions along [address] and from within [site address] , would diminish the established leafy charm of the wider development. New planting would not be adequate mitigation as the same visual amenity provided by the existing trees would take many years to replicate.

Therefore, I conclude that as the immediate surrounding area is typified by dwellings set against a silvan backdrop where trees form an integral part of the surroundings, the effect of the proposed development would give rise to significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policy NE2 of the Waverley Local Plan (Part 1) (2018) (WLP1) and Policies DM4 b) vii) and DM11 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan (Part 2) (2023) (WLP 2), which say, amongst other things, that development should retain woodland, important trees, groups of trees and hedgerows. 1 Waverley Borough Council TPO 3/03

At the site inspection it was noted that the spatial relationship between the proposed dwelling and the properties on either side of the appeal site would be similar to the spatial separation between existing properties nearby.

Nevertheless, the proposal would not meet the Council’s adopted standard for the storage of refuse, recycling and cycles. Indeed, it appeared that the current scheme has limited formal cycle storage opportunities. However, I am satisfied that these matters could be resolved through the imposition of the Council’s suggested conditions, including a condition for landscaping to preserve the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Nonetheless, even though the appellant contends that acceptability of the suspended stepped access and the absence of a private open/garden space would be a matter of personal choice for future occupiers, the submitted plans show that the kitchen and dining areas would have high level windows.

Therefore, notwithstanding the lower-level fenestration to the front of the dwelling, given the orientation of the site and proximity of the woodland, at certain times of the day and year this unsatisfactory arrangement would result in not only a limited outlook onto the car parking area to the front of the dwelling but also create gloomy internal living spaces within. As such, this would harm the living conditions of future occupiers.

For this reason, the proposal would be contrary to Policy TD1 of WLP (1) and Policy DM5 of WLP (2), which say that new development should improve the quality of life and health and well-being of current and future users.

The appellant has submitted a [name] (PEA) which was found unacceptable to the Council and the Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT). Nevertheless, while noting the discrepancies between the site boundaries shown in the PEA and the appellant’s aboricultural report, I acknowledge that some matters raised could be resolved through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

However, in the absence of an Ecological Impact Assessment and an agreed [name] assessment, biodiversity worries remain for the Council to which I concur. For example, but not limited to, the precise effect of the proposal on the proximity of ancient woodland and a range of protected species namely bats, common toad, great crested newts, badgers and hedgehogs. My concern is further exacerbated by the unspecified ground levelling works likely to be required to facilitate the development and the absence of a robust and viable mitigation approach.

Therefore, taking a precautionary approach related to protected species and woodland/trees, I conclude that the proposal would harm site ecology.

It follows then that the proposal would be contrary to Policies NE1 and NE2 of the WLP (1) and Policies DM1 and DM11 of the WLP (2), which are clear that the Council will seek to conserve and enhance biodiversity within Waverley.

I note that Godalming Town Council have no objection to the scheme and that the appellant is a long-standing local resident.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year [name] (HLS). As such, Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is therefore of relevance and the ‘tilted balance’ engaged. Therefore, any adverse impacts of the proposal need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The economic benefits of the proposal include the construction work associated with the scheme and the use of local services by future occupiers. However, as the construction work would be short-term and the use of local services relatively small scale, I give these combined benefits limited weight.

There would also be some environmental benefits related to the sustainable site location that is near to the services and connections of Godalming and the provision of new landscaping. However, as these benefits would be limited, I afford this minimal weight.

In respect of the social benefits related to the proposal, the Framework is clear that Government objectives include an emphasis on housing delivery with the aim of exceeding national housing targets. Paragraph 73 of the Framework also recognises that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. However, as the scheme would provide a relatively low contribution to the Council’s overall HLS, I attribute the social benefits little weight.

Nevertheless, given my findings on the main issues above, I conclude, even when considered in combination, the economic, environmental and social benefits of the residential scheme and other matters raised do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm I have found above.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.