Appeal 6005000

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development on the application form differs from that on the decision notice. I have no evidence that the change was agreed with the applicant and so have used that on the form.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the area; • living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy; and • health and value of nearby protected trees; and whether the site is suitable for the proposed development, having regard to its accessibility to services and facilities.

The appeal site is part of the wedge-shaped garden of a two-storey semi-detached Victorian or Edwardian cottage within the edge of [site address] , a defined village in the Green Belt. Both cottages have hanging tiles and half hipped roofs with flat central areas, possibly due to previous extensions, but retain much of their original style and form, particularly where they front the street.

Beyond the attached cottage to the north are the large rear gardens of houses on [address], spaciously laid-out with detached Victorian, Edwardian and post-war houses, verges and footways to both sides. Adjoining the site to the south are the gardens of more recent detached houses, more tightly grouped on smaller plots around the end of Ridge Green with trees and outbuildings near the boundary. Opposite the site is a detached house, a church and open countryside.

The proposal would demolish a detached prefabricated garage, lay out an access driveway alongside that of the host and construct a two-storey detached house of a similar form and materials to the host, in brick with hanging tiles, mock Tudor boards to feature gables, a hipped roof with flat central area and a timbered open porch. It would be sited 1.[address] on Ridge Green, from which the nearest neighbour is around 5m.

Whilst the plot would be smaller and narrower than the retained land, it would be larger than that of the attached neighbour. Like that plot, it would also be difficult to see from the street due to the narrow frontage and vegetation. Whilst the house would be close to the boundary, the distance to the nearest house on Ridge Green would be comparable to other such relationships on that street. Furthermore, its scale, massing and roof form would reflect that of the host and its neighbour.

The plot forms part of neither the pattern along [address], nor the more informal arrangement to Ridge Green, and would be seen mainly from the latter, with which and from where its scale and separation would not appear unusual. Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

The first-floor front windows of the proposed house would be 8-12m from part of the retained garden nearest the host cottage, the rear windows of which would be around 25m away. The area immediately adjoining the cottage is likely to be used most and because both that and large areas of the rest of the retained garden are far enough from proposed windows, the proposal would have an acceptable effect. I am also mindful that planting could further improve privacy.

Whilst noting objections, I agree with the Council that sufficient of the rear gardens of 5, 6 and 6a Ridge Green would be too far away or at too oblique an angle from proposed rear and front windows for either a dominating impact or unacceptable overlooking to occur to those gardens. Indeed, the house would be nearest to the blank walls of outbuildings and the side garden of 6a Ridge Green, to which it would present only small obscure-glazed windows.

Overall, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to privacy.

The proposal would impinge on 28% of the root protection area (RPA) of one and 21% of the RPA of another mature horse chestnut tree, the trunks of which are in the adjoining garden. Both have been surveyed as moderate quality ([name]) and are protected by a Tree Preservation Order.

The submitted [name] recommends a lightweight and porous surface on a ‘no-dig’ subbase for the driveway, which would mitigate the impact of most of the greater incursion. Piled foundations installed under an arboricultural watching brief would be required to deal with about half of the smaller incursion. Whilst this may mitigate the impacts, the most reliable way to prioritise trees and soil structure is to preserve the RPA completely undisturbed.

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment estimates that the house would be on land at 67.15m AOD, but the drawings do not contain detailed levels. Furthermore, an overlay of the Block Plan and Tree Protection Plan shows discrepancies in the positions of trees. Consequently, I agree with the Council’s tree officer and cannot be confident that an appropriately worded condition could secure a ‘no-dig’ surface and suitable foundations that would be within the scope of the proposal.

Consequently, I cannot be sure that the proposal would not harm the health and value of nearby protected trees, contrary to Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 (TLP2), which require development to have regard to important trees that need to be retained and their retention to be reflected in the proposed layout.

The site is located opposite a church with a hall, a public house is located 400m away at the other end of [address] and a railway station is a further [address], with regular services to Redhill and Tonbridge. A cricket club, allotments, Scout hut, shop and post office, primary school, village hall and recreation ground with play area are about a kilometre away. A garden centre with a farm shop and cafes is somewhat further to the north and less accessible on foot.

I have no evidence as to the number or frequency of bus services and the route to the nearest stops lacks footways. Indeed, the County Council as local highway authority objects on the basis that there is no footway from the proposed access to the end of [address], along which the above facilities would be reached. [name] observed a single streetlamp opposite the end of [address], I saw no other lighting on either that street or [site address] nearer the site.

[name] do not accept that the only realistic means of transport would be by private car, nor do I accept the site is in a highly sustainable location. Whilst a range of services and facilities are within walking distance, the lack of a footway on a dark lane would present a risk to pedestrians and discourage access on foot, contrary to TLP2 Policy DP5, which seeks safe and suitable access for all. Consequently, the site is unsuitable for the proposal, having regard to its accessibility.

Interested parties are concerned that the proposal would constitute inappropriate infill within the Green Belt and would increase the severity of flooding to them and to other properties in the area. However, because the site is within the boundaries of a defined village and surrounded on almost all sides by developed land, I agree with the main parties that it is appropriate development in the Green Belt. Similarly, I consider the proposal unlikely to increase the severity of flooding to others, as a Flood Risk Assessment has found it to be at very low risk of flooding itself.

Paragraph 232 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that weight should be given to policies adopted prior to its publication in December 2024, according to their consistency with the Framework. The Tandridge District Core Strategy and the TLP2 were adopted in 2008 and 2014, but their Policies CSP18, DP5 and DP7 are consistent with paragraphs 115, 117 and 136 of the Framework with respect to promoting sustainable transport and creating well-designed places. As a result, they should continue to be given significant weight.

The appellant refers to an appeal decided a year ago in which the Council and the appellant agreed that there is a demonstrable unmet need for housing. This was because the most recent assessment of housing land supply indicated a supply of 1.92 years and the 2023 housing delivery test found that the Council was providing only 42% of the housing requirement. The Council does not dispute the unmet need and, consequently, paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged.

The proposal is not subject to policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance. However, I have found both that the proposal would harm the health and value of nearby protected trees and, whilst services and facilities are within walking distance, the site is nonetheless unsuitable for the proposal due to the lack of safe and suitable access on foot. The combination of these potentially avoidable impacts is in my view significant.

Consequently, there is conflict both with the development plan and key policies for promoting sustainable transport in respect of safe and suitable access for all and creating well-designed places in respect of effective landscaping, including those at paragraphs 115 and 135 of the Framework.

Despite the contribution to the supply of housing in view of the shortage of land, and the small boost to the local economy during construction, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.