Appeal 6003410

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use of ancillary outbuilding to independent residential dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Blackheath, Guildford, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02044, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 1107_01_001 B (Location Plan), 1107_02_101 (Prop. Block Plan), 1107_05_101 A ([name] & Section AA), 1107_03_101 A ([name] & [name]).

Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted, details of all boundary treatments shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatments shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained.

The parking area shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted and thereafter retained for the parking of vehicles associated with the dwelling.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Waverley Borough Council. The application for costs is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council confirmed that the references on the decision notice to Policy ST1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] and [name] 2018 (LPP1) and Policy DM9 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (March 2023) (LPP2) relate to the provisions for sustainable travel rather than highway safety. This aligns with the reason for refusal which does not cite harm to highway safety. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, having particular regard to the spatial strategy set out in the development plan and accessibility to services and facilities by sustainable travel modes.

The appeal site lies within a row of dwellings within Blackheath, which does not have a defined settlement boundary in the development plan. Blackheath comprises a collection of dwellings and some facilities, including a church, a village hall, and a cricket club which afford it the character of a rural settlement with some amenities. The Council has not stated that Blackheath is not a village. Therefore, in the absence of substantive evidence to indicate otherwise, Blackheath is a village.

Policy SP2 of the LPP1 sets out the spatial strategy for Waverley. Amongst other things, it seeks to focus development on the four main settlements of Farnham, Goldalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh, whilst also allowing for development in larger and other named villages, which do not include Blackheath. However, Policy SP2 5. also allows for modest growth in “other villages” to meet local needs. Unlike other parts of Policy SP2, the “other villages” referred to in Policy SP2 5. are not named and I have not been directed to any definitive evidence to show that it applies only to villages with defined settlement boundaries. Therefore, Policy SP2

does not exclude the village of Blackheath.

However, the modest growth allowed for in villages through Policy SP2 5. is only to meet local needs. Whilst the proposal would contribute towards the supply of housing in the Borough, I have not been referred to a local survey or other evidence to demonstrate that it would meet a particular need arising locally nor is there any mechanism put forward to secure this. Consequently, the proposal does not carry support from Policy SP2 5.

Due to its siting within Blackheath village, and having regard to case law1, the site is not isolated in the terms of Paragraph 84 of the Framework. However, Policy ST1 of the LPP1 nonetheless expects development to be located where opportunities for sustainable travel modes can be maximised. Policy DM15 of the LPP2 also states that development in rural areas should not be isolated from everyday facilities, whilst maximising opportunities for walking and cycling and seeking to avoid dependency on private vehicles. Policy DM9 of the LPP2 further seeks to promote sustainable transport modes, including through the provision of safe and convenient access for all highway users. These policies are supported by the sustainability objectives of the Local Transport Plan 2022-2032.

The accompanying text to Policy DM15 of the LPP2 states that the policy applies to any area outside of a settlement boundary. It is the appellant’s view that Policy DM15 does not apply to the appeal site, because case law2 has established that defined settlement boundaries are not necessarily determinative and the site lies within the confines of a village as it is experienced on the ground. 1 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] EWCA, Civ 610 2 [name] v SSCLG and Gravesham Borough Council [2015] [name] 195

However, the development plan must be read as a whole and, given that the development plan includes defined settlement boundaries, I consider that the accompanying text to Policy DM15 should be understood to mean that it applies to any area outside of the settlement boundaries as defined in the plan. Therefore, even though Blackheath is a village, it lies outside of a defined settlement boundary and in a rural area where Policy DM15 applies.

Blackheath offers good opportunities for social activities and recreation, including through the cricket club with its licensed bar, the village hall, and the nearby heathland and woodland leisure routes. The village also has a church with daily opportunities for worship. Therefore, some of the needs of future occupants would be met within the village or within a short walking distance.

However, to meet a fuller range of everyday services, including schools, medical facilities, and shops, future residents would need to travel further afield to larger settlements, such as Wonersh and Chilworth.

The roads from Blackheath to Wonersh and Chilworth are narrow and undulating with no lighting or dedicated routes for pedestrians or cyclists. These features of the route would act as deterrents to walking and cycling, particularly during hours of darkness and in inclement weather. Whilst the evidence refers to a bus service from Blackheath, there is very limited information before me about the frequency, duration, destinations, and reliability of its services. Therefore, there is uncertainty as to whether the bus would provide a realistic alternative to travel from the appeal site. Overall, it is likely that future occupants of the dwelling would rely heavily on the private car to meet most, albeit not all, of their essential needs.

Given the small scale of the single dwelling proposed, the additional car journeys associated with the scheme would be low in number, and the journey to Wonersh and Chilworth would be short. These larger settlements would also provide for onward travel by bus, and there is a railway station in Chilworth that would enable future occupants to reach Guildford and Gatwick by train. Therefore, whilst journeys out of Blackheath would be reliant on the private car, there would be the opportunity to travel further afield by a mix of modes, including sustainable modes.

That being said, the poor connectivity from Blackheath by sustainable transport options points to the site being in a location where there would be a dependency on private vehicles. This would be contrary to the provisions of the development plan, specifically Policies ST1 of the LPP1 and DM9 and DM15 of the LPP2 which, taken together, seek to maximise and promote sustainable travel and to reduce reliance on the private car. The proposal would also fail to accord with the spatial strategy set out in Policy SP2 of the LPP1. Collectively, these factors point to the development being in an unsuitable location for the proposed development when assessed against the requirements of the development plan.

In coming to this view, I have had regard to the Council’s favourable decision for the conversion of an ancillary building to an independent dwelling at a site near Dockenfield3. I am not beholden to the Council’s other decisions. Moreover, I have assessed the appeal based on the specific context of this site in Blackheath, which is unlikely to be directly comparable to Dockenfield. 3 Planning application reference WA/2025/00091

The appeal site lies within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL), where there is a statutory duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of the NL4. The physical alterations arising from the appeal scheme would be very small scale given that it relates to an existing building. Consequently, any effects would be localised to the site and its immediate surroundings, and there would be no harm caused to the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

No new buildings or structures are proposed that would impede access to the nearby fire hydrant. Thus, there would be no increased fire safety risks arising from the development.

The proposal would conflict with the aforementioned development plan policies, which brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. Developments that conflict with the development plan should normally be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

In this case, the Council concedes that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The supply stands at 1.28 years, which is a considerable and serious housing shortfall.

Due to the housing land supply position, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is engaged. It is common ground that, as the re-use of a building of permanent and substantial construction the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and I have already concluded that no harm would be caused to the [name]. Therefore, there would not be a strong reason to refuse the development proposed under the provisions of paragraph 11 d) i. It follows that the scheme falls for consideration against the test in paragraph 11 d) ii.

Although the social and economic benefits arising from a single dwelling would be small, the proposal would nonetheless support the national objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. The Framework recognises that small sites can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements, and this was found to be the case locally in the [name] [name] 1 April 2024 [name] 2025. Further benefit would arise as the proposal would make use of an existing under-utilised building.

Due to the extent of the housing shortfall, and the urgent need for housing, these benefits carry significant weight.

Whilst the building could be made more energy efficient, there is no mechanism through which the fittings and fixtures in this existing structure could be guaranteed, therefore I have not ascribed weight to these potential benefits. The absence of identified harm in respect of the standard of the accommodation and the effects of the proposal on local character, landscape, highway safety, neighbours, and non-designated heritage assets weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The Framework does not preclude housing outside of settlements with defined boundaries, particularly where it would support the vitality of rural communities and services in nearby villages as would be the case here. The Framework also 4 Section 245 of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable travel solutions will vary between urban and rural areas.

In this case there is a serious shortage of housing land supply, necessitating the consideration of sites for housing beyond those identified in the spatial strategy. There are some facilities in Blackheath, and private car journeys to Wonersh and Chilworth would be short and thus the impact on the environment would be low. Moreover, these larger villages would provide opportunities for onward travel by bus and rail, enabling journeys to be undertaken by a mix of modes, including sustainable modes. In this context and given the extent of the housing shortfall in the area, I ascribe limited weight to the conflict with Policies SP2 and ST1 of the LPP1 and DM9 and DM15 of the LPP2.

Overall, in the specific circumstances of this case, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. This is an important consideration which leads me to a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

The Council provided a list of suggested conditions, which I have considered against the tests set out in the Framework.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have attached a condition to define the permitted drawings to provide certainty. I have also included a condition relating to the boundary treatments in order to protect the character and appearance of the area. A condition securing the provision of the car parking area is necessary to safeguard safety on [site address] .

The Council suggested that some permitted development rights should be removed through a condition. However, I have not been directed to any specific harm that would be caused through the exercise of the permitted development rights. Consequently, it would be unnecessary and unreasonable to remove those rights.

Based on the information available this permission is considered to be one which will not require the approval of a biodiversity gain plan before development is begun because a statutory exemption applies.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan but the material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.