Appeal 6006270

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of an employment use; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Witley Conservation Area and the significance of the Hillbrow grade II listed building; • the effect of the proposed scheme on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to privacy and outlook; • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook and the provision of amenity space; and • the effect of the proposed development on highway safety, with particular regard to access arrangements and trip generation.

The appeal site consists of an unoccupied single-storey office building within a courtyard-style employment development comprising small-scale commercial buildings accessed from [site address] . The premises was occupied continuously as an office from May 2016 until October 2024 when it was vacated due to financial pressure and a business restructure.

Policy EE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: [name] and [name] 2018 (LPP1) permits the change of use of existing identified and other employment sites to residential where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment use. The supporting text indicates that proposals involving the loss of existing employment use must be supported by appropriate evidence. This should include the possibility of redevelopment and marketing for employment use, and information on why the site or buildings are physically unsuitable for employment use even after adaptation, refurbishment or redevelopment.

Policy E2 of the Witley Neighbourhood Plan 2017 – 2032 (NP) seeks to resist the loss of business units unless it can be demonstrated that this is either unviable or would offer at least an equal employment benefit to the local community.

The modest sized premises is not within a designated employment area in the development plan, but it nonetheless forms part of a small business complex. It is proposed to convert, demolish and extend parts of the building to form four residential units, involving the loss of its existing employment use. As such, Policy EE2 of the LPP1 and Policy E2 of the NP apply.

It is indicated that the owner has been unable to find a new tenant for the premises, and that its configuration and modest scale limit the flexibility for alternative commercial occupation without significant intervention. However, no substantive evidence has been submitted showing that the site has been marketed for employment use, that such use is unviable or that the premises could not be adapted or redeveloped to meet modern business requirements. In the absence of this information, it has not been demonstrated that the site could not continue to be used for employment purposes in accordance with the aims of the development plan policies.

The building could be changed from offices to residential under permitted development (PD) rights1. This is subject to limitations and conditions which include matters in respect of which the developer must apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether the prior approval of the authority will be required. Another building in the yard has been converted following prior approval by the Council. Nevertheless, there should be a real prospect of a fallback development being implemented. As there is no evidence that the appellant is pursuing such a proposal under PD rights, there is no greater than a theoretical possibility that this might take place, and thus I accord it limited weight.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would result in the unjustified loss of an employment use. This would be contrary to Policy EE2 of the LPP1 and Policy E2 of the NP.

The appeal site comprises one end of the employment units in [site address] and associated parking area opposite. The yard largely consists of two long single storey pitched roof utilitarian buildings with parking and access areas between, 1 Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended giving it a relatively open character. Whilst visible in the gap between the two storey buildings which face the street, due to its relatively low height and position set back from the road the building appears discrete and appropriate in its backland employment context.

The proposed scheme would retain the existing building footprint, extending upwards to create a two-storey structure with projecting front balconies. The eaves height of the extended building would align with those on [address] which also forms part of the employment complex. However, [address] is a more traditional building facing [site address] and does not visually relate to the single storey complex behind.

Due to the significantly increased height and introduction of upper-level front projections, the extended building would have a substantially greater mass than the existing structure. Therefore, it would introduce an incompatible built form, appearing overly dominant and cramped in the yard, and eroding its spacious character. The lack of meaningful building insets would accentuate the incongruous scale and visual prominence of the extended structure.

To the rear, there would be ground floor windows and patio doors, with rooflights serving the first-floor flats. The resulting lengthy blank wall at the upper level and a relative lack of architectural features on this elevation would give it a functional and unbalanced appearance.

The extended building would have brick walls to match the existing and the proposed roof tiles would be a more traditional material compared to the current corrugated metal roof. Nonetheless, this would not mitigate the harmful scale and design of the proposed extended building which would appear discordant in views from [site address] , the employment yard and neighbouring residential properties.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy TD1 of the LPP1 and Policy DM4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies March 2023 (LPP2). Together, these require development to be of a high-quality design which responds to the local context, including in terms of the scale of development and streetscape rhythm, amongst other things. Whilst not referred to in the relevant reason for refusal, the Council’s Officer Report refers to Policy ND5 of the NP. The proposal would also conflict with this policy where it requires new development to integrate effectively with existing development.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to Policy ND7 of the NP. However, as this relates to safeguarding residential amenity, it is not directly relevant to the issue of character and appearance.

The appeal site lies behind the grade II listed Hillbrow, within the Witley Conservation Area (CA), which are designated heritage assets. The significance of the CA derives in part from its historic development as an agricultural settlement from the 15th century with a linear pattern, on the main route from Petworth to Godalming. It retains traditional building forms and a palette of materials including brick walls and tiled roofs. [site address] comprises the only industrial units in the CA, containing 20th century single storey red brick buildings with corrugated roofs which are not typical of or sympathetic to the special interest of the CA. Nevertheless, given their height and position to the rear of two storey buildings on [site address] , they are unimposing and discreet.

Hillbrow is a 17th century timber framed house, since divided into two dwellings, remodelled in the 19th century. It is composed of two storeys on a tall plinth with a 19th century cross wing to the right. The significance of Hillbrow derives from it being a pleasant, simple example of local vernacular and architectural and technical traditions.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. Hillbrow is experienced as an elegant, traditional two storey cottage fronting the road alongside other cottages with different styles. It is seen alongside the modern employment building behind, which appears discordant with the traditional listed building. However, due to its modest height the appeal building appears subservient compared to the historic building facing the street and does not dominate views of Hillbrow.

The proposed development would appear as an overly bulky addition on a currently low-key backland site within the CA behind the listed building. Although the employment yard contains buildings which do not positively contribute to the CA, the scale of the proposed structure would draw more attention to it, highlighting the incongruous appearance of the site. Whilst it would be finished in traditional materials, the form and size of the proposed extended building would compete in side and rear views of Hillbrow, The dominant appearance of the proposed structure would harm the setting of the listed building in views through the yard entrance from [site address] and from within the employment site.

For these reasons, the proposal would not preserve the character or appearance of the CA or the significance in terms of the setting of the listed building. Given the backland location of the proposed development within the CA and the relative position of the existing and proposed buildings, this would be at the lower end of less than substantial harm. In such circumstances, Policies DM20 and DM21 of the LPP2 require consideration to be given to the public benefits to be gained. Further, Policies HC2 and HC3 of the NP outline that great weight should be given to conserving the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the CA. These development plan policies align with the designated heritage asset policies in the Framework.

There would be a public benefit from the provision of four dwellings on a previously developed vacant site within Witley, and for reasons I go into I accord this moderate weight. Nonetheless, the public benefits would not outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the CA and setting of the listed building caused by the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed scheme would conflict with Policies DM20 and DM21 of the LPP2 and Policies HC2 and HC3 of the NP.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. It would also fail to preserve the significance of the listed Hillbrow, given the harm that would be caused to its setting. This would be contrary to Policies HA1 of the LPP1, Policies DM20 and DM21 of the LPP2 and Policies HC2 and HC3 of the NP. These seek to conserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets, including requiring development to be of a high-quality design which is of an appropriate scale, height and style to the setting of listed buildings and the character of CAs.

The existing building lies close to the large rear garden of the house known as The Donkey Door, with a boundary fence separating the two. The parking area and small gardens belonging to 1 and 2 Hillbrow (Nos 1 and 2) lie to the east of the site, with the rear rooms of these two storey cottages facing it.

The appeal structure contains rear windows close to and facing towards the rear garden of The Donkey Door, and the proposed ground floor rear bedroom windows and patio doors would extend higher than the existing windows. Given the difference in ground levels, the proposed openings would largely be above the height of the boundary fence.

The rear rooflights on the upper floor would ensure no downward looking views into the neighbouring outdoor space. However, due to the position of the proposed ground floor rear windows and doors and their proximity to the mutual boundary, future occupiers of these flats would have direct views into The Donkey Door’s rear garden. This contains some planting which when in full leaf would reduce views by occupiers of the proposed ground floor flats into the more open areas of the space, but it could be removed or become damaged or diseased. As such, the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to the occupiers of this property when using their rear outdoor space.

The existing modest sized building would be extended to create a significantly higher two storey structure. Although it would be evident from The Donkey Door, given the size of this neighbouring rear garden and the location of the extended building at an oblique angle to the existing dwelling, the proposed scheme would not cause an undue loss of outlook to the occupants of this property.

Nevertheless, residents of Nos 1 and 2 would directly face the extended building when using their rear ground and upper floor rooms and gardens which are close to the appeal site. Due to the height of the proposed structure and its siting relative to these neighbouring properties, the appeal scheme would dominate the outlook from the rear rooms and outdoor areas at Nos 1 and 2 and have an overbearing effect. It would adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of these neighbouring dwellings when using these rear spaces.

Overall, whilst the proposed scheme would not cause a harmful loss of outlook from The Donkey Door, it would harm the occupants’ privacy. There would also be an unacceptable loss of outlook to the occupiers of 1 and 2 Hillbrow. This would be contrary to Policy TD1 of the LPP1, Policy DM5 of the LPP2 and Policy ND7 of the NP where they seek to promote health and wellbeing and avoid unacceptable harm to existing occupants by way of overlooking or an overbearing appearance.

The proposed development would provide two flats on each floor. The upper floor units would include front balconies and rear rooflights, with small rear amenity areas serving the ground floor flats, and a front communal space.

The internal accommodation would comply with the [name]. Whilst they would give direct sky visibility and natural daylight, the proposed rooflights would provide the only openings to both bedrooms in each of the upper floor flats (units 3 and 4). Although rooflights are commonly used for accommodation within pitched roofs, due to the reliance on rooflight windows for all the upper floor bedrooms, there would be a restricted and unacceptable outlook from these rear rooms in units 3 and 4.

It is proposed to provide rear private amenity space of around 9.5-10.2m2 for each of the ground floor flats. Due to their limited depth and position sandwiched between the building and the boundary fence, these amenity areas would be very enclosed, poor quality external spaces, impractical for use by future residents.

The communal amenity space would be located under the projecting first floor, adjacent to the parking area for Nos 1 and 2 and the access to the employment yard. Whilst it could provide shelter in inclement weather, users of this space would be exposed to vehicle movements taking place in the adjacent parking and employment areas, and business activity occurring within the yard. Due to its position under the building, adjacent to parking and business areas, the proposed communal amenity space would be unwelcoming, unsuitable and lacking in privacy, failing to provide satisfactory external space for future occupants.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would provide unacceptable living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook and the provision of amenity space. This would conflict with Policy TD1 of the LPP1, Policy DM5 of the LPP2 and Policy ND7 of the NP. Together, these seek to provide a high-quality living environment, including ensuring the provision of private, useable and appropriately located external amenity space, amongst other things.

The proposed development would be served by the existing vehicular access onto the busy A283 [site address] , which at this point is subject to a 30mph speed limit and has a footway along the same side of the road as the appeal site. The proposal would introduce four residential units, retaining the four existing on-site parking spaces.

The County Highway Authority (CHA) objects to the proposal as it has not been demonstrated that the existing site access onto the A283 provides adequate visibility for vehicles accessing and egressing the site, nor adequate visibility splays for pedestrians approaching the site access along the public footway. It is indicated that visibility splays of 2.4m by 43m are required in accordance with the Manual for Streets, but the CHA may accept a reduced visibility splay if a speed survey established that measured 85th percentile speeds on [site address] are below 30mph.

Further, the CHA considers that in the absence of an assessment of the trip generation impact of the proposal, the appeal scheme would be likely to result in an increase in pedestrian and vehicle movements, increasing the likelihood of danger and inconvenience to all highway users on [site address] . Therefore, it recommends refusal of the proposal.

The Framework requires developments to ensure safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users. It indicates that development should only be refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe residual cumulative impacts on the road network.

The appellant asserts that given the vehicle movements generated by staff and visitors related to the previous office use of the site, the proposal would not intensify activity to such an extent that it would cause severe highway impacts. However, I afford significant weight to the expert view of the CHA. Therefore, without an assessment of trips generated by the proposal and an indication that adequate visibility splays could be achieved for the access onto the busy A283, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not increase traffic movements nor avoid endangering highway users.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm highway safety, with particular regard to access arrangements and trip generation. This would be contrary to Policy SP1 of the LPP1 and Policy DM9 of the LPP2. Amongst other things, these seek sustainable development which provides safe and convenient access for all highway uses in a way which does not adversely increase the risk of accidents or endanger the safety of road users.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including biodiversity and carbon reduction. Nonetheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

An interested party states that a balcony would project across the legal property line, and queries whether the legal notices were correctly served. [name] had been minded to allow the appeal, I may have had to consider this point further. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, there is no need for me to consider this point.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make, whilst supporting development which makes efficient use of land. As at April 2024, the Council’s position is that it can only demonstrate a 1.28 year supply of deliverable housing sites against the five years required by the Framework.

The proposal would make a modest contribution of four dwellings to the supply of housing on a small site in the Witley built up area within convenient reach of local services, bringing a vacant building back into active use and making more efficient use of previously developed land. It would contribute towards Waverley’s housing supply, making a modest difference to addressing the shortfall, and therefore I attribute moderate weight to this benefit.

As the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect heritage assets provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s designated heritage asset policies provides a strong reason to refuse the development. The proposal would also conflict with Policies EE2, TD1, HA1 and SP1 of the LPP1, DM4, DM5, DM9, DM20 and DM21 of the LPP2 and Policies E2, ND5, ND7, HC2 and HC3 of the NP.

Consequently, 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. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.