Appeal 6002530

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of Number [address], with particular regard to their outlook. • Whether the proposed development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to outlook and privacy, and the arrangements for bin storage and collection, and cycle parking, • The effect of the proposed development on highway safety with particular regard to car parking provision. • Whether the proposed development would increase surface water flood risk downstream of the appeal site.

The evidence indicates that the appeal site lies within the 5km buffer of the [name], which is subject to statutory protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (“the Regulations”). The information before me indicates that the SPA is designated for internationally important bird populations and it provides a habitat for several bird species which nest near the ground making them susceptible to human disturbance and predation by pets.

Future occupants of the appeal development would be expected to visit the SPA for recreational purposes. Those recreational activities would contribute to the disturbance of the qualifying bird species, leading to declining populations and threatening the integrity of the SPA’s nature conservation interests. Consequently, occupation of the development would be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA, both on its own and cumulatively with other housing developments.

The Thames Basin Heaths SPA Supplementary Planning Document 2021 requires the adverse effects of new development on the integrity of the SPA to be mitigated through the payment of proportionate financial contributions towards the delivery of strategic alternative natural greenspace (SANG) and strategic access management and monitoring measures (SAMM). Under the Regulations it is my duty as the Competent Authority to undertake an Appropriate Assessment to determine whether those mitigation measures would be properly secured to avoid those likely significant adverse effects on the SPA.

The main parties appear to agree that a legal agreement would be needed to secure payment of the financial contributions to mitigate the proposed development’s harmful effects on the nature conservation interests of the SPA. The appellants contend that all appropriate SANG and SAMM information was submitted and that any payment of money or legal agreements would have been provided to the local planning authority had it been requested.

Before me is a letter from the Council to the appellants dated 13 May 2025 regarding the planning application being invalid upon receipt. The letter also advised that a legal agreement in the form of a completed [name] (UU) would be necessary to secure payment of the contributions towards the SANG and SAMM. It says that a completed UU securing those contributions would be necessary to comply with the Regulations and the framework agreement between the Council and Natural England.

No legal agreement is before me in this appeal. The appellants have advanced no evidence to demonstrate that the requisite financial contributions could be legally secured if planning permission was granted. I have considered whether there are any effective alternative mechanisms to a legal agreement. However, the Planning Practice Guidance1 is clear that the payment of money cannot be required by a planning condition.

In having regard to the guidance on planning obligations in the Planning Practice Guidance2,3 there are no very exceptional circumstances on the evidence before me to justify imposing a planning condition to secure the necessary legal agreement. The guidance states that discussions about planning obligations should have taken place as early as possible in the planning process to avoid delays in decision making.

As the Competent Authority in this appeal, I cannot be satisfied that the necessary measures to mitigate the proposed development’s harm to the SPA would be 1 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 21a-005-20190723 2 Paragraph: 010 [name]: 21a-010-20190723 3 Paragraph: 013 [name]: 23b-[phone] properly secured if planning permission was granted. As the SPA is an important legally protected habitats site, I have taken a precautionary approach to this matter. For the reasons given above, I conclude through my Appropriate Assessment that occupation of the proposed development would have a significant adverse effect on the nature conservation interests of the SPA. No other solutions, imperative reasons of overriding public interest to permit the development, or other compensatory measures have been put forward as alternatives by the appellants.

This is contrary to Policy EE10 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan Adopted July 2020 (“the RLP”), which requires development to put in place adequate measures to avoid and mitigate potential effects on the SPA, and paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) which requires decisions to protect sites of biodiversity value in a manner consistent with their statutory status, and that planning permission should be refused if significant harm to biodiversity cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated, or as a last resort compensated for. Living conditions of the occupants of Number [address]

The Council contends that the proposed first floor extension, by reason of its height and siting, would be an unneighbourly and oppressive development to the detriment of the residential amenities of occupiers of the flats to the west. It says the main impact would be on the occupants of the ground floor flat known as Number [address], which has a small outdoor amenity space and is located close to the west facing wall of the appeal building.

The Runnymede Design Supplementary Planning Document, [name] 2021 (“the SPD”), provides guidance on outlook and advises that extensions should not significantly harm the outlook of neighbouring properties through being over-dominant.

At present, the outlook from the east facing window of Number 31B and its small outdoor amenity space is primarily towards the modest massing of the west facing wall of the appeal building and above its roof. Despite the window and outdoor amenity space of Number 31B being set within an under-croft style configuration, the occupants would be expected to have a reasonably generous outlook that includes the spacious airspace that exists above the appeal building’s low height flat roof and the intervening boundary structures.

The proposed extension would significantly increase the height and massing of the appeal building’s west facing wall. In views from the main window and outdoor amenity space of Number 31B, the closeness of the elevated massing of the appeal building’s proposed west facing elevation would have an imposing and overbearing presence. This would result in an oppressive relationship with Number 31B that would significantly harm the living conditions of its occupants.

The Council is satisfied that the appellants’ daylight and sunlight assessment shows that the proposed development would not harmfully affect access to light to Number 31B. Even if I were to agree, it would not alter my conclusion on this main issue.

For those reasons, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of Number 31B, with particular regard to their outlook. Therefore, it would be contrary to RLP Policy EE1 and Policy ND1 of the [site address] Village Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2030 [name] 2024 (“the NP”) insofar as new development should ensure no adverse effects on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties or uses. The NP is part of the development plan, and its policies have been brought to my attention by the [name] as an interested party. The proposed development would also be contrary to Framework Paragraph 135, which requires development to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. Living conditions of future occupants - bin storage/collection and cycle parking.

The appellants contend that there were no discussions with the Council regarding any potential bin storage issues, and that any concerns could have been addressed and resolved had they been raised. However, the appellants have had an opportunity to consider and respond to the Council’s objections through the appeal process.

The SPD advises that cycle storage facilities should be secure, covered and conveniently located for use by residents, and able to accommodate the necessary number of bins. The appeal proposal is to accommodate cycle and bin storage within a dedicated storage room within the building, which would be covered, secure and easily accessible to residents.

The Council’s evidence indicates that each residential unit would require 2 bins. On the evidence before me the proposed storage facility within the building would not be large enough to accommodate the requisite number of wheeled bins and cycles associated with its proposed occupation. I therefore have no basis to depart from the Council’s assessment that bin storage would be inadequate and is likely to lead to accumulations of waste and potential public health issues, resulting in harm to the living conditions of future occupants.

The Council states that the current refuse collection vehicles are unable to access [site address] , which is not disputed by the appellants. It has not been demonstrated that bins could be presented for collection at a location accessible by collection vehicles and with sufficient space to accommodate them. Presenting bins on the [address] frontage for collection would not be viable given the stepped nature of the accessway and the steep gradient between it and the appeal building.

Wheeling bins to [address] was considered acceptable by the Inspector for the dismissed appeal4 at Number [address] as the distance over which bins would need to be wheeled would not be inconvenient or contrary to what other occupants nearby are already doing and thus would not be harmful. The distance between the appeal site and [address] would be slightly shorter than that considered acceptable by the Inspector. However, neither the appeal site nor land within the appellants’ control is shown as extending to [address]. Therefore, it is unclear whether a right of way to [address] would exist for future occupants of the proposed development.

Even if it did, the evidence suggests that several properties present their bins for collection in a location alongside Number [address], and near to where the narrow access of [site address] joins it. An interested party says up to 10 bins are left at the entrance on collection days, which is not disputed by any of the main parties. I saw at my visit that there would be little space in this area to 4 APP/Q3630/W/22/3303532 accommodate wheeled bins presented for collection without obstructing the access road of [site address] , or the highway footway and carriageway of [address].

On the evidence before me, I see no basis to depart from the Council’s concerns. The appellants have not shown that sufficient space exists in that location to accommodate wheeled bins for collection without obstructing the access road or the highway footway and carriageway. Therefore, presenting wheeled bins for collection on the [address] frontage has not been shown to be a viable option for future residents of the proposed development and is likely to lead to accumulations of waste and potential public health issues.

The Council suggests that cycle parking provision could be relocated elsewhere so that the storage facility is dedicated to bins. However, there is nothing before me to show that a suitable cycle storage facility would be provided elsewhere on the appeal site and any implications that might have. Moreover, on the evidence before me this would not resolve concerns relating to the arrangements for presenting bins for collection by Council refuse vehicles.

Consequently, the appellants have failed to demonstrate that the storage of cycles and bins, and arrangements for bin collection would be adequate. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers, contrary to RLP Policy EE1 and NP Policy ND1 insofar as they require development to achieve high quality design and ensure safe and attractive developments with no adverse impacts on the living conditions of occupants. It would also conflict with Framework Paragraph 135, which requires development to function well and create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The appeal building is located amongst a small enclave of similar style single storey buildings that are located behind the row of taller buildings fronting [address]. The area has a tight grain with the buildings being interspersed amongst hard surfaced parking areas and with a narrow vehicular access route that appears to join [address].

The SPD states that all dwellings must be designed with high quality internal spaces to provide suitable levels of natural daylight and sunlight, and reasonable levels of privacy. The elevated heights of the windows serving the first floor apartments would provide future occupants with a relatively extensive outlook over land to the south. They would provide good access to light and would largely prevent views into those apartments.

At ground floor level, the full height glazed doors and relatively wide windows in the south facing elevation of the building would allow good levels of light to reach the open plan internal spaces within the proposed apartments. They would provide future occupants with an outlook across the hard surfaced access and towards the building at Unit [address] of parked cars. [name] 6 and the parked cars are not large structures, occupants of the ground floor units would have views over them and across the land to the south, including views of the sky above. In the context of the tight grain of the area, the large doors and windows, together with the spacious open plan internal layout, would provide future occupants of the ground floor units with a satisfactory outlook that would not result in oppressive living conditions.

The Council considers that the windows and doors serving the ground floor apartments would allow passersby to see into the rooms, resulting in unsatisfactory levels of privacy for the future occupants, particularly given the open plan internal layout. However, there is nothing before me to indicate that the public have a right of access along the front of the appeal building. At the time of my visit, there was no discernible activity around the appeal building and Unit 6 appears to be a small, low key commercial premises. I saw that activity in the wider area was concentrated along the public realm of the [address] frontage. Although my visit can only be a snapshot in time there is nothing of substance before me to indicate what I observed was abnormal.

It is reasonable to suppose that only a small number of people would walk or drive past the front wall of the appeal building in order to access their own buildings within this small enclave. The probability of passersby having uninterrupted views into the proposed ground floor apartments would therefore be relatively low. Devices such as blinds or curtains would be able to prevent views into the more sensitive areas of those apartments, such as where the bed would be located. As such, the proposed development would provide adequate levels of privacy for future occupants. The frequency of vehicle headlights being able to shine into the ground floor apartments would also be at a relatively low level given the capacity of the nearby parking area. It would not be expected to harm the occupants living

I am mindful that the evidence indicates that [name] under Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) has been granted twice in the past to change the use of the appeal building to a single residential dwelling, which seems to represent a realistic fallback development and negates the loss of the employment use. As Class MA does not permit operational development that would change the external appearance of the building, it is reasonable to suppose that the approved residential unit would have utilised the existing window openings, with a broadly comparable outlook.

The Council considers that the wider site has evolved since an Inspector allowed an appeal5 to change the use of the appeal building to 2 x 1 bed residential units. However, there is nothing of substance to show that to be the case and full details of that appeal scheme are not before me for comparison.

The dismissed appeal6 to change the use of Number [address] to a residential studio/bedsit, appears to relate to a different building where the only meaningful outlook would have been provided by a single full height window. On the evidence before me, it does not represent a direct parallel to the current appeal proposal. Therefore, it has limited relevance and weight to my considerations in this appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude on this issue that the appeal development would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Therefore, it would be consistent with RLP Policy 5 APP/Q3630/A/12/2180649 6 APP/Q3630/W/22/3303532 EE1 and NP Policy ND1 which expects all development to ensure no adverse impact on the amenities of future occupiers, and Framework Paragraph 135, which requires development to function well and create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

In the case of this appeal, the Runnymede Parking Guidance Supplementary Planning Document provides a guideline of 1 car parking space per residential unit, which is not presented as a maximum or minimum standard. This is because the guidance seeks to allow flexibility in parking provision in order to enable development proposals to make efficient use of land, account for site specific factors such as the characteristics of its location, the availability of alternative means of travel in the area, and any car parking issues in the locality.

Despite vehicles being parked close to the appeal building and on land within the appellants control, the appellants’ intention is for the proposed residential units to be occupied by university students and without any car parking provision being made available to them. In any case, the drawings show that the land within the appellants’ control, including the appeal building and the parking spaces, does not extend to [address]. There is nothing before me to show that the public highway extends to the appeal building.

Surrey County Council as the Local Highways Authority (LHA) sought clarification from the appellant as to whether residents of the proposed development would have access to those parking spaces and if not, who would. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis that future occupants would not be able to park cars on the appeal site. To access the proposed residential units, future occupants would appear to rely upon the stepped pedestrian route extending westwards to [address], which is within the appellants’ control.

The Council considers the location of the appeal site to be relatively sustainable. Given the facilities and services in the area, and their proximity to the appeal site, including the University, I see no basis to disagree. However, they also state that car ownership in the area is high. This aligns with the representations of several local residents who raise parking pressure as a major issue in the vicinity of the appeal site, particularly along [address], which is a residential street.

No mechanism preventing the future occupants of the appeal development from owning cars and parking them on the public highway, particularly [address] and [address] where parking appeared to be unrestricted, has been put before me. An interested party quotes undisputed evidence that research at the University found that some 63% of students will have a car during the next academic year. Based on that figure, it would be reasonable to expect that some of the intended occupants of the proposed development would have a car and would park it on nearby streets.

An interested party, on behalf of the [site address] Village Neighbourhood Forum Steering Committee, has submitted the results of a parking stress survey on residential streets, including [address] and [address] in the area of the appeal site. The results of that survey, which have not been disputed by any other party, identified that [address] was assessed as experiencing high levels of parking stress. This is broadly consistent with my observations at my site visit of there being a relatively small number of spaces available for parking there. However, the survey identified that parking stress on [address] was much lower, and its capacity for resident parking was never breached during the survey, even as the university term progressed. I saw at my visit that several spaces were available on [address] for vehicle parking.

Taken together, these factors indicate that the proposed development could lead to some future student residents parking on the public highway, most likely on [address], a short distance from the appeal site where spaces are likely to be available. This would not be expected to give rise to any additional highway safety risks or congestion over and above what exists now. Parking by future occupants on [address] could be expected to displace some of the existing residents’ parked cars onto [address] from time-to-time. However, spaces would be expected to be available on [address], where parking is likely to be available and has not been shown to be harmful to highway safety.

In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, it cannot be assumed that cars would be parked dangerously around junctions and/or in contravention of existing restrictions such as on double-yellow lines or across driveways. There is no substantive evidence to show that such parking currently occurs in the area and there are actions that can be taken outside of the planning process by the relevant authorities to address parking in restricted areas that contravenes traffic regulations. The Council and the LHA have not really explained how the proposed development would result in harm to highway safety as contended in the refusal

On the evidence before me, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to highway safety, with particular regard to parking. Therefore, I find no conflict with RLP Policy SD4 and NP Policy TT1 insofar as they support development proposals which maintain or enhance the efficient and safe operation of the highway network, and provide adequate on-site parking to meet current and future needs, unless alternative and accessible car parking arrangements can be made which do not add to on-street congestion.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal is the failure to demonstrate that the proposal would not increase surface water flooding downstream of the site. In my view, the term downstream refers to land beyond the appeal site boundary, in the direction of surface water flow. RLP Policy EE13 requires development to attenuate surface water run-off so that post-development run-off rates do not exceed those that existed prior to development. The policy also seeks the active reduction of run-off rates and volumes where previously developed land is being redeveloped.

The proposed development is for an upwards extension to the building above its existing outer walls and for a change of use. It is not for the redevelopment of the appeal site insofar as the building would not be replaced. In my judgement it stands to reason that the existing drainage system would be utilised for the proposed new roof, which has not been shown to materially increase the area of impermeable surfacing or the rate and volume of surface water run-off into the existing drainage system. Whilst the Council makes some general comments regarding how sustainable drainage systems should be incorporated, the proposed development would not be expected to require any significant new drainage infrastructure. No substantive evidence has been advanced to the contrary.

Framework paragraph 182 is clear that only applications which could affect drainage on or around the site should incorporate sustainable drainage systems to control flow rates and reduce volumes of runoff, and they should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. In my judgement, requiring a new drainage system to serve the appeal development would, on the evidence before me, be disproportionate. I am also mindful that flood risk did not appear to preclude the change of use of the appeal building to a single residential dwelling under Class MA.

Consequently, on the balance of the evidence before me, the proposed development would not be expected to increase the rate of surface water run-off and flood risk downstream of the appeal site. Therefore, I find no conflict with RLP Policy EE13 in that regard, or with Framework Paragraph 182, the requirements of which are set out above.

The matters raised by interested parties relate mostly to the Council’s refusal reasons and have been addressed under my main issues above. Where they do not, it is unnecessary for me to reach a finding on them as they would not have altered the outcome of the appeal.

As a matter of principle, the proposal would accord with the support given for student accommodation by RLP Policy SL23. It would make a valuable contribution to boosting the supply of housing to address the current shortfall against the 5-year requirement, which I have assumed to be significant in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Joint economic, social and environmental benefits would be delivered through construction of the roof extension and occupation of the development, which the Council says would be in a sustainable location.

The proposal would broadly accord with the Framework’s support in paragraphs 125 and 129 for making efficient use of land to meet the identified need for different types of housing, including using the airspace above the existing building to deliver new homes where consistent with the prevailing form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene. The Framework states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs.

The appellants appear to hold the view that some of the Council’s refusal reasons and harms could have been resolved through further discussions and amendments, particularly those relating to cycle storage and the arrangements for bin storage and collection. However, even if I were to agree, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and would harm the living conditions of the occupants of Number [address].

In the absence of any compensatory measures, imperative reasons of overriding public interest to grant planning permission, or alternative solutions, the harm to the SPA means that I am directed by Regulation 63(5) of the Regulations to refuse planning permission, irrespective of the benefits of the development and whether there would be any other harms. The harm to the SPA and the conflict with RLP Policy EE10 and the Framework in that regard is determinative in this appeal.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites and therefore Paragraph 11 of the Framework is relevant. However, under Footnote 7 to Framework Paragraph 11.d)i. the proposal’s adverse effect on the SPA provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposed development complies with some policies in the RLP and NP. However, the conflict with [name] EE1 and EE10, and NP Policy ND1 brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole. The conflict with the development plan carries substantial weight against it. The material considerations, including the benefits of the proposal and the provisions of the Framework, are insufficient to outweigh that finding. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal proposal is unacceptable, and the appeal is dismissed.