Appeal 6003825

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s first reason for refusal referred to Policy D5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 Adopted 25th April 2019 (GBLP), which relates to the protection of amenity. The Council has subsequently confirmed that it should have referred to Policy D4, relating to design and local distinctiveness. The appellant addressed both policies in their appeal statement and so has not been disadvantaged. I have therefore had regard to Policy D4 of the GBLP in respect of the first reason for refusal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA).

The appeal site contains a row of lock-up garages located to the rear of a parade of shops. The garages are accessed from [address], which is residential in character and comprises two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings characterised by hipped roofs and double height bay windows with gabled roofs.

The proposed dwelling would be of comparable massing to nearby dwellings, with a suitable separation distance between it and the closest dwelling, [address]. Owing to the shallow depth of the plot, the house would be located close to the site’s rear boundary, with its garden located at the side and parking in front. The relative shallowness of the plot would not however be perceived from the road. Although the plot would be wider than the prevailing plot width in the street, its side garden would adjoin the rear garden of the adjacent property situated at the junction of [address] and [address], and it would not therefore appear cramped or contrived.

The proposal is for an L-shaped dwelling, with its main roof hipped on one side. External materials would comprise brick on the ground floor and render on the first floor, matching the existing houses in the road, although the proposed slate tiles would contrast with the prevailing plain tiles in the street. The dwelling’s projecting front gable, whilst larger than the gabled double height bay windows typically found on other properties, would respect the character of the existing dwellings. However, whilst the main portion of the dwelling would conform to the prevailing building line, the front gable would project significantly forward of it. In a street characterised by the regularity of its building line, such a feature would be jarring and incongruous, notwithstanding the minor variations in the existing building line where double height bay windows project forward of the building line.

I have had regard to the fact that the existing lock-up garages are set moderately forward of the building line, but as they are single storey in height, their visual impact is comparatively limited. The adjacent property and the property diagonally opposite are located on the corner, and hence their rear gardens are bounded by walls and hedges next to the highway, but this does not provide justification for the excessive forward projection of the proposed dwelling.

The existing lock-up garages are of utilitarian appearance and lack soft landscaping, and the proposal would provide some visual benefits owing to its domestic appearance and associated planting. The dwelling’s footprint would be only marginally greater than that of the existing garages, whilst the density of the proposal would be within the range of 30-50 dwellings per hectare. However, none of these considerations alter my conclusion regarding the forward projection of the proposal. This adverse impact would be exacerbated by the unbalanced appearance of the main roof, having a gable on one side and a hip on the other, and the use of slate on the roof.

My attention has been drawn to permissions which have been granted to replace garages with houses at [address], [address], [address] and Dean Road1. Whilst demonstrating that lock-up garages within settlement boundaries can in principle be redeveloped for housing – a matter which is not in dispute between the main parties – none are directly comparable as regards their impact on the building line. I therefore attach limited weight to these examples.

The appellant has referred me to the recent conversion of a commercial building to residential use at [address], which is subject to a retrospective planning application2. As this site appears to be a backland site, it has limited relevance to the current appeal, and moreover I have not been advised whether planning permission has been granted.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy D4 of the GBLP, which requires development 1 LPA references 23/P/01739, 19/P/02160, WA/2016/1900 and WA/2017/0891 2 LPA reference 25/P/00739 proposals to incorporate high quality design which contributes to local distinctiveness by demonstrating a clear understanding of place.

The appeal site lies within the 400m-5km zone of influence of the SPA, which provides a habitat for three internationally important bird species; woodlark, nightjar and Dartford warbler. These birds nest on or near the ground and, as a result, are very susceptible to predation by cats, rats and crows, and to disturbance from informal recreational use, especially walkers and dogs. The SPA is a European Designated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitats Regulations), and as such it is incumbent upon me as competent authority to consider whether the development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site.

The Thames Basin Heaths SPA Avoidance Strategy Supplementary Planning Document July 2017 identifies that all three bird species are vulnerable to impacts on breeding success from surrounding urban pressures, particularly recreational disturbance. Therefore, any increase in housing around the SPA requires effective and appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures to prevent adverse effects on the habitat and the bird populations. In conjunction with Natural England, a three pronged approach has been developed which relies on the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to attract people away from the SPA and reduce pressure on it; access management measures on, and monitoring of, the SPA to reduce the impact of people who visit the SPA (SAMM); and habitat management of the SPA to improve the habitat for ground nesting birds.

As any net increase in residential dwellings within the zone of influence is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, either alone or in combination with other developments, every residential development must make provision to avoid and mitigate the potential effect on the SPA. Where developments require SANG, appellants can pay a tariff to secure SANG mitigation from the Council’s strategic SANGs. A contribution towards the SAMM project is required from all net new residential development.

Although the appellant has expressed a willingness to enter into a deed of unilateral undertaking under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure mitigation measures to protect the integrity of the SPA, no such deed has been submitted. In the absence of a suitable mechanism to secure mitigation measures, the development is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA.

The proposal therefore fails to accord with the Habitats Regulations and would conflict with Policy P5 of the GBLP and Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. Together these policies require new residential development which is likely to have a significant effect on the ecological integrity of the SPA to demonstrate that adequate measures have been put in place to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects. I have not found conflict with NE4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 which does not specifically relate to SPAs.

A house is proposed, and the Council cannot demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework makes clear that permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the proposed development.

Even though a five year housing land supply cannot be demonstrated, I have found that the proposal would risk harm to a habitats site, namely a SPA, which is an asset of particular importance which the Framework seeks to protect (footnote 7). As such, the policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing permission. Consequently, paragraph 11 of the Framework and its presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged.

The delivery of a sustainably-located dwelling on previously developed would be a social benefit, whilst economic benefits would accrue from the construction phase and from expenditure on goods and services by future occupiers. A single dwelling is capable of being constructed quickly, which counts in its favour. The dwelling would be energy-efficient and constructed to [name] standards, and would enhance landscaping and biodiversity. The proposal would remove a row of lock-up garages and their associated hardstanding which do not contribute positively to the street scene.

Although the appellant has indicated that the proposal is for a self build dwelling, no mechanism to secure it as self build is before me, and I am therefore unable to afford weight to the appellant’s aspiration for a self build development. The lack of adverse impact on neighbouring properties is neutral in the planning balance.

Positively contributing to the Council’s housing land supply, albeit in a modest manner for a single dwelling, is a benefit given the Council’s housing land supply shortfall. I therefore attach moderate weight to the benefits that the scheme delivers. However, these benefits do not outweigh the concerns I have identified above.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.