Skip to content

Waverley Borough Council – Expert witness at s.78 planning inquiry

OUR INVOLVEMENT

Planning

Project Outline

The development proposed is the erection of up to 162 dwellings (including 30% affordable dwellings) built in up to 3 phases including access road, pedestrian and cycle accesses, parking, public open space, biodiversity enhancement and landscaping and other associated infrastructure works.

 

The development proposed is the erection of up to 162 dwellings (including 30% affordable dwellings) built in up to 3 phases including access road, pedestrian and cycle accesses, parking, public open space, biodiversity enhancement and landscaping and other associated infrastructure works.

 

Reference:
J004856 – PINS Ref: APP/R3650/W/23/3326412

OUTCOME

Appeal dismissed – no claim for costs.

COMMENTS

WS Planning & Architecture were instructed to prepare the Councils Statement of Case and Statement, Proof of Evidence, handle negotiations regarding the Statement of Common Ground and prepare for an attend a 7 day Inquiry. Working alongside the Council’s Conservation Officer and external Landscape Architect we successfully defended the Councils case and the appeal was dismissed.

As with all major housing appeals a great deal of work revolved around the assessment of the specific site constraints, policy implications and a detailed analysis of appeal decisions within the Borough and throughout England. A number of reasons for refusal had been addressed by the appellants prior to the exchange of Proofs of Evidence and while a difficult decision was made to withdraw the Arboricultural reason for refusal the Council also upgraded the level of Heritage harm previously relied upon with the Case Officer report. The decision shows the importance of time depth in a valued landscape, the rural setting of listed buildings and developing in accordance with an adopted spatial strategy.

When considering the Planning balance the Inspector gave significant/substantial weight to market and affordable housing, self build and custom-build plots limited weight, ecological enhancement and BNG slight weight. Socio-economic benefits, open space provision, supporting local services, off-site contributions to infrastructure and sustainability benefits all attracted limited weight. On the contrary, unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, which included a valued landscape, attracted substantial weight. Considerable weight was also given to the overall harm to listed buildings.

Click HERE to download Cornerstone Barristers article.
Click HERE to download the Planning Resource article
Click HERE to download the Appeal Decision

 

WS Planning & Architecture were instructed to prepare the Councils Statement of Case and Statement, Proof of Evidence, handle negotiations regarding the Statement of Common Ground and prepare for an attend a 7 day Inquiry. Working alongside the Council’s Conservation Officer and external Landscape Architect we successfully defended the Councils case and the appeal was dismissed.

As with all major housing appeals a great deal of work revolved around the assessment of the specific site constraints, policy implications and a detailed analysis of appeal decisions within the Borough and throughout England. A number of reasons for refusal had been addressed by the appellants prior to the exchange of Proofs of Evidence and while a difficult decision was made to withdraw the Arboricultural reason for refusal the Council also upgraded the level of Heritage harm previously relied upon with the Case Officer report. The decision shows the importance of time depth in a valued landscape, the rural setting of listed buildings and developing in accordance with an adopted spatial strategy.

When considering the Planning balance the Inspector gave significant/substantial weight to market and affordable housing, self build and custom-build plots limited weight, ecological enhancement and BNG slight weight. Socio-economic benefits, open space provision, supporting local services, off-site contributions to infrastructure and sustainability benefits all attracted limited weight. On the contrary, unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, which included a valued landscape, attracted substantial weight. Considerable weight was also given to the overall harm to listed buildings.

Click HERE to download Cornerstone Barristers article.
Click HERE to download the Planning Resource article
Click HERE to download the Appeal Decision