Appeal 6002913

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s decision notice included five reasons for rejection, including concerns that insufficient information had been provided, or adequate measures proposed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable risk of flooding and that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that there was not a sequentially preferable site from a flooding perspective. During the appeal process the appellant provided further information which the Council and relevant consultees considered satisfactorily addressed these concerns. I agree that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed and this is reflected in the main issues I have set out below.

Also, during the appeal process the appellant submitted an amended plan which showed that there would no longer be a pedestrian link between the area of the site that would accommodate the restaurant and the proposed wildlife/ecology site. The statement of common ground (SoCG) sets out that the purpose of the amendment would be to resolve a wider perceived concern in relation to recreational pressure on the proposed wildlife/ecological area. The SoCG also set out that this would represent a minor layout change and as access to the service area would be retained by an existing footpath to the east there would be no procedural issue or unfairness if I were to accept this amended plan. I agree with this assessment. The loss of the pedestrian link would not represent a fundamental change to the proposal. Moreover, as pedestrian access would be available via a different route I consider that there would be no procedural unfairness involved.

Similarly, the appellant has proposed the provision of a living green wall around the corral and a green roof to provide additional green features to the building. Again, I consider that such a change is minor and would not represent a fundamental change to the scheme and no-one would be prejudiced by me determining the appeal on the basis of this amendment.

It follows that I will determine the appeal on the basis of the amended plans which do not provide a footpath link between the restaurant area and the proposed wildlife/ecology site and include the green wall and roof. Prior to and at the hearing the ecological case was provided by Surrey Wildlife Trust on behalf of the Council. For ease of reference, I shall not differentiate between different parties and where necessary I shall refer to any views or information as being made by the Council.

I observed at the site visit that landscape works have already been undertaken on the northern part of the appeal site which is shown as the proposed wildlife/ecology site on the appeal plans. The appeal site was included in the application site for [name] that was granted planning permission1 (the [name] planning permission) and I understand that certain works on the appeal site have been undertaken as part of that permission. However, notwithstanding the works already undertaken I shall determine the appeal on the basis of the appeal plans, as amended.

The main issues are: • Whether or not the proposal would represent an appropriate location within the countryside with particular regard to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether or not it would lead to a greater physical or visual coalescence between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot; • Whether or not sufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the proposed development on protected species and habitats and whether or not the proposal would unacceptably harm the [name] and Tice’s Meadow Site of Nature Conservation Importance or be at odds with the objectives of the Blackwater River Biodiversity Opportunity Area.

The appeal site is located in the countryside within a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) and within the Blackwater River Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BRBOA).

Policy P3 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites 2015-2034 adopted 25 April 2019 (GBLPSS) sets out the approach to development within the countryside. This policy has three criteria. Criterion b) sets out that development will be permitted provided it is proportionate to the nature and scale of the site, its setting and countryside setting.

The explanatory text in support of this policy in its reasoned justification references the guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which sets out the decisions should contribute to and enhance the 1 17/P/01879 natural local environment by, among other things, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

The appeal site comprises an area of largely undeveloped land to the north-west of the existing [name] (TS) which includes a fuel filling station, Starbucks and an Asda which contains a number of food concessions including Greggs, Subway and Leon.

The appeal site is currently separated from the TS by a temporary fence although this has been damaged and a gap has been created to allow pedestrian access to the TS facilities. There is an existing service road that runs along the north-western part of TS which provides vehicular access to the main facilities as well as to the Starbucks drive thru. To the north of the appeal site is the Blackwater Valley River and its associated footpath. To the east of the proposed restaurant site is a balancing pond and open land and to east and west there are large swathes of open land which include large bodies of water including the Tice’s Meadow Nature Reserve.

Further to the north beyond the river is [name] and Aldershot Park which fall outside of the Aldershot Urban Area (AUA) and to the north-west is the more built-up area of Aldershot which is within the AUA. The Ash and Tongham Urban Area (A&TUA) is located to the east and south-east of the appeal site on the other side of the A331.

In the Guildford Landscape Character Assessment & Guidance (GLCA) which was prepared in 2007, the appeal site is located within area H5 the Blackwater rural urban fringe. This area is identified as being of an evolving nature due to the former quarry uses. That said, of particular importance in the context of this appeal is that it notes that H5 provides a green corridor and separation on the western side of Ash and Tongham and a buffer to the merging of development between Aldershot and Ash and Tongham as well as providing a green corridor and tranquil setting.

The appellant has prepared a [name] (LHS). I agree with the LHS that the appeal site can be split into two distinct parcels of land with the wildlife/ecology site being introduced into the north-western part of the site which comprises most of the appeal site. This area includes a circular gravel track which links to the [name]. The smaller area to the south-east currently comprises open grassland. However, this area was also included as part of the [name] planning permission for a picnic area which although yet to be implemented the appellant accepts should be the baseline situation in the determination of the appeal.

For my part, I am not making a definitive determination of whether the picnic area should be implemented as that is not a matter before me and could be subject to a subsequent separate planning process. However, I consider that for the purposes of this appeal it is reasonable to determine this appeal on the basis that the picnic area will be implemented and consequently I agree that it can be considered to represent the baseline situation.

I say that because the picnic area was included as part of the [name] planning permission, a specific condition of that permission required the submission and approval of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) which also specified that the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved LEMP. Moreover, the approved LEMP set out that during the first year after practical completion the soft landscape would be maintained by the [name] responsible for the works, it also set out the annual works that should take place and a detailed maintenance schedule.

Turning back to the appeal proposal, I consider the appellant downplays the value of the appeal site. It is largely surrounded by open land and bounded to the north by the [name] and the [name]. To the west is Tice’s Meadow Nature Reserve and to the east is also a large body of water. [name] accept that the appeal has mature vegetation along the north, east and west boundaries which visually contains the site, the undeveloped nature of its surrounding is apparent when standing on the site particularly to the east and west as views are possible above the tree line where there is a verdant backdrop beyond the appeal site boundary which in my view indicates that the appeal site forms part of an important green corridor between the A331 and road side development such as the TS and the more urban areas of Aldershot on one side and Tongham and Ash on the other.

The appeal site being part of this green corridor appears as a largely undeveloped open area. Conversely the TS appears as an incongruous and inharmonious urban intrusion into the otherwise open green area. The appellant considers that the nature and setting of the appeal site is that of a degraded parcel of land that reads exclusively as part of the existing TS. I do not agree. The existing service road at the north-western edge of the TS forms an effective boundary between the harsh urbanising development associated with this roadside facility and the open green area to the north-west. I appreciate that the baseline would introduce picnic tables into part of the appeal site. However, that would not significantly diminish the open character and appearance of the area.

Although traffic noise is apparent, notwithstanding the information provided in the LHS about tranquillity I was struck by how tranquil the walk along [name] was and that feeling did not significantly diminish as I walked around the circular track in the existing wildlife/ecological area. This area of the appeal site is the most valuable, but the area to the south-east, where the restaurant and ancillary works are proposed acts as an important green transition buffer between TS and the existing wildlife/ecology area, [name] and its associated path.

As a result, the character and appearance of the appeal site derives to a significant extent from its open appearance which creates a sense of spaciousness to the north-west of the TS and clearly delineates the hard urbanising features associated with the TS and the countryside beyond. This sense of spaciousness as well as the important role the appeal site plays as a green open buffer makes a significant contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Overall, I consider that the appeal site is consistent with the description of H5 in the GLCA as providing a green corridor.

As well as the proposed enhancement of the wildlife/ecology area, the proposed development would involve the introduction of a freestanding single storey building, parking for 46 cars as well as a service road to provide a drive thru lane and associated works. Although the proposal would be compatible with the TS, it would introduce development into that part of the appeal site which forms part of a green corridor that acts as an important buffer between the TS and the proposed wildlife/ecology site. This would represent an unacceptably intrusive form of development at odds with existing nature of the site and its setting.

I turn now to consider Policy P3 c) of GBLPSS. This seeks to ensure development does not lead to greater physical or visual coalescence between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot. It was agreed at the hearing that coalescence in this context would be the process of coming or growing together to form one thing.

As outlined above, the appeal site forms an important part of the existing green corridor between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot. Clearly, the proposal would result in an extension of development to the north-west of the TS on undeveloped land which would encroach into the open countryside and would lead to development closing the gap between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot. This arrangement would erode the existing green corridor and would compromise the integrity of the gap which would lead to a greater coming together and therefore lead to greater physical coalescence between Aldershot and the Ash and Tongham urban area.

In the LHS and at the hearing, the appellant referred to a settlement gap analysis. To my mind this supports my view about coalescence as the gap between the Aldershot and Ash and Tongham urban areas is shown as 411 metres where it crosses the appeal site, and I accept that it would be slightly wider if it was measured to cross the point on the appeal site where the restaurant would be sited. However, that gap has already been materially reduced by the introduction of the TS. [name] accept that the proposed development would reduce the gap by about a further 37 metres, when taken together with the existing development at the TS, in physical terms the introduction of the proposed development would materially diminish the existing gap and would result in greater harmful coalescence.

Visually, I appreciate that due to the significant vegetation, particularly along the [name], public views allowing an appreciation of the coalescence would be more limited. However, Policy P3 of GBLPSS sets out that the coalescence should not be either physical or visual. Moreover, I observed that there are gaps in the vegetation along the river path which do allow clear views across the existing wildlife/ecology area. Further, notwithstanding the proposed landscaping scheme, views would also be possible from the track that would run around the proposed wildlife/ecology site which will be accessible to the public from the [name] path. Consequently, even if a person viewing the proposal would not fully appreciate that the proposed development would lead to greater coalescence, they would be able to view development which I have found would be an unacceptably intrusive form of development at odds with the existing nature of the site and its setting.

In relation to whether the proposal requires a countryside location or whether a rural location can be justified I accept that the intention of the proposal is to provide an additional roadside facility adjacent to existing roadside facilities to cater for market demand and provide choice. Consequently, I am satisfied that if in all other respects the proposal was acceptable then a rural location could have been justified. However, given my findings above in relation to the other two criteria of Policy P3 of GBLPSS this finding does not justify harmful development at the appeal site.

The Framework is clear that the creation of high quality, beautiful buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Given my findings above, the proposal fails to achieve this objective.

In reaching that view I have taken account of the previous appeal decision that has been brought to my attention involving a development at Baynard’s Green, Oxfordshire2. While my findings in relation to whether or not a rural location could be justified are not inconsistent with this decision, there are material differences between that case and this one. For example, in that case the site is bounded on three sides by development comprising roads and the petrol filling station and on the fourth by a planted highway verge. Consequently, the context is entirely different, and I note that unlike my findings the Inspector in that case did not have any concerns about the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. As a result, although I have taken account of that other decision in the determination of the appeal given the material differences involved it has not altered my view in relation to this main issue.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not represent an appropriate location within the countryside as it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and would lead to a greater physical coalescence between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot. I afford this issue substantial weight. Consequently, the proposal would be at odds with Policy P3 of the GBLPSS and with the Framework for the reasons set out above.

Originally, I had identified two separate main issues. However, having considered the evidence prior to and at the hearing ecological matters can be dealt with as one

The appellant has undertaken a significant amount of assessments and proposed a number of enhancements and recommendations, including a preliminary ecological appraisal report, an ornithology impact assessment scoping report, a bat survey report, an ecological briefing letter, a drainage ecological briefing letter, an ecological enhancement features drawing, lighting review with regard to bats, a biodiversity enhancement plan and a construction ecological management plan.

This information has been used to inform the proposal and to my mind adequate information has been provided to assess the impact on protected species and habitats. Further, as the proposed surface water drainage will no longer cross underneath the proposed wildlife/ecological area and there will be no need to install a new headwall within the bank of the [name] there will be no harm to the ecological status/potential of this water body. As a result, the proposal would not be at odds with Policy 10 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan Development [name] adopted 22 March 2023 (GBLPDMP) which among other things seeks to ensure that development proposals do not result in the deterioration in the ecological status of a waterbody.

I therefore turn to consider whether any impact can be satisfactorily mitigated and whether or not the proposal would unacceptably harm the [name] and [name] and would support the objectives of the BRBOA. Relevant 2 APP/C3105/W/16/3151655 objectives are to restore and create priority habitat and to seek at least stabilisation and preferably recovery of priority species.

The SNCI is a site of local importance for wildlife designated for its habitats of lakes, wet grassland, temporary ponds and surrounding scrub and is recommended by [name] as an important breeding and foraging area for birds.

As outlined above, the baseline would involve the inclusion of a picnic area which would be reached from the TS via a footpath link which would continue around the circular gravel track within the wildlife/ecology site which links to the [name]. The proposed wildlife/ecology site would be compatible with the SNCI designation. To my mind the baseline situation would cause a level of disturbance to this area as customers using the facilities would be attracted into the area and would use the picnic tables. Pedestrians would also access the TS from the [name] and demand for this route is already evidenced by the fact that the existing fence has been damaged to allow pedestrian access from [name].

As also outlined above, I have accepted amended plans which exclude the footpath link so that pedestrians cannot access the proposed wildlife/ecological area from the TS or the proposed restaurant or vice versa. This ensures that the additional customers that would use the restaurant would not cause disturbance to the SNCI and there would be an improvement in comparison to the existing situation with the informal route to the TS and the baseline which would include a picnic area.

I accept that there would be additional vehicular movements closer to the wildlife/ecological area than existing or under the baseline scheme. However, I am satisfied that appropriate landscaping along the north-western boundary and in the proposed wildlife/ecology site would ensure that noise and disturbance would not unacceptably disturb wildlife. Similarly, based on the available evidence I am satisfied that the proposed lighting, including glare would not result in unacceptable harm to wildlife. Further, I am satisfied that the appellant would take a pro-active approach to litter collection.

I accept that the appeal site currently acts as a middle link between the valuable areas of habitat and ecological importance to the east and west. As such it acts as a corridor that improves the functional connectivity between these core areas enabling species to move between them to feed, disperse, migrate or reproduce. Clearly, the introduction of development on the south-eastern portion of the appeal site would reduce the existing corridor.

However, as recognised by the Council the approved baseline picnic area would not represent habitat which would meet SNCI criteria, but they nevertheless consider that the baseline proposal would be a better scheme for the SNCI as it would provide a facility which would reduce pressure on the SNCI. They indicate that their view is supported by the Tice’s Meadow Bird Group which sets out that the loss of the picnic area would drive users of the service station into the proposed wildlife/ecological area to the north and potentially into the wider SNCI, causing increased disturbance, littering and dog fouling in sensitive habitats.

Given that the pedestrian link has been deleted, the concerns in relation to additional pressure are largely addressed as I consider it less likely that users of the service station would walk the further distance to reach the proposed wildlife/ecological area or the wider SNCI.

The proposed wildlife/ecological area would ensure that a valuable corridor would be retained between the areas of habitat and ecological importance to the east and west. I appreciate that the picnic area would also provide an open landscaped area which would provide more of a corridor than the proposed development as this area would become much more developed under the appeal proposal. However, overall, as a corridor would be provided across most of the appeal site and there would be no pedestrian access, the loss of the baseline picnic area would result in only limited harm.

Further, there are some enhancements associated with the proposal as summarised in the biodiversity enhancement package letter from the appellant dated 13 April 2026 which I accept would result in implementation and management of the proposed wildlife/ecological area and additional habitat creation within the appeal site in support of the BRBOA objectives. I have taken account of concerns expressed by interested parties in relation to the impact of the proposal on wildlife, including on reptiles and amphibians. However, if in all other respects the proposal had been acceptable, I consider that a suitably worded condition would ensure that wildlife including reptiles and amphibians would be adequately protected.

Measures would also include an offer to transfer the proposed wildlife/ecological area to Surrey County Council (SCC), along with a commuted sum for them to manage that area. I also note that SCC have confirmed their in-principle willingness to accept the transfer of the area. This arrangement would be secured by an executed planning obligation, which I am satisfied meets the three tests set out in the Framework.

I have also taken account of the fact that together with the ecological enhancements, the proposal would also ensure that there is a biodiversity net gain. Notwithstanding that this is a statutory requirement it still weighs in favour of the proposal.

As a result, any limited harm to the ecology of the area caused by the loss of the baseline picnic area would be offset by the benefits associated with the proposed development including habitat creation within the SNCI and BRBOA to ensure the proposal would not be at odds with the objectives of the BRBOA. Consequently, I give this matter modest positive weight.

I therefore conclude that sufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the proposed development on protected species and habitats. Moreover, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the [name] and Tice’s Meadow Site of Nature Conservation Importance or be at odds with the objectives of the Blackwater River Biodiversity Opportunity Area. As a result, the proposal would not conflict with Policy ID4 of the GBLPSS and Policies P6 and P7 of the GBLPDMP which among other things seek opportunities for habitat restoration and creation particularly within BOAs, to protect important habitats and species and for development proposals to contribute towards the achievement of the objectives of the BOA.

I have taken account of the fact that the proposal would have wider economic, social and environmental benefits. For example, it would provide some jobs and create demand for materials during the construction phase and would provide 120 full and part time local jobs when operational. I have also taken account of the appellant’s evidence on sustainability and the environment, transport impact and reducing carbon dioxide emissions, waste minimisation, energy and carbon reduction, social sustainability and responsibility as well as national and local community initiatives. I also accept that the restaurant would be well managed, would provide good training for its employees and the restaurant would not result in any unacceptable amenity or anti-social harm. Overall, I afford all matters that weigh in favour of the proposal moderate weight.

In addition to the appeal decision mentioned above I have taken account of the other appeal decisions that have been brought to my attention. In relation to the case at Broomwood, Orpington 3, this is consistent with my view in relation to anti-social behaviour. Moreover, the other case raised involving a site at [address], Faversham 4 relates to flooding and which as outlined above has been satisfactorily resolved in this case. Consequently, these appeal decisions have not materially changed my view on the merits of this case.

I have afforded some matters weight as outlined above and overall, I afford the totality of the benefits moderate weight in the determination of the appeal. On the other hand, I afford substantial weight to my finding that the proposal would not represent an appropriate location within the countryside as it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area and would lead to a greater physical coalescence between the Ash and Tongham urban area and Aldershot.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.5

In this case, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.

Statement of [name]

Draft of Condition 4

List of Draft Conditions with appellant’s and Council’s comments

Executed Planning Obligation and letter from Surrey County Council

Written agreement to pre-commencement conditions