“(a) Outline Planning Permission for the development of up to 400 residential dwellings on 22.1 ha of the site including the creation of an access point from Ash Lodge Drive, the demolition of No. 52 South Lane, and the demolition of No. 54 South Lane to enable the creation of a second access point from South Lane. Creation of a primary route through the site and an emergency access link from South Lane. Provision of open space including children’s play areas, community allotments, sustainable urban drainage systems and green links on the site. (b) Full Planning Permission for the change of use from agricultural land to use as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) on 24.0 ha of land to the south of the dismantled railway/Christmas Pie route to serve the proposal and the surrounding area, including accesses, pathways and associated landscaping.”
“Development in the Countryside Beyond the Green Belt will be resisted except for that related to: 1. Agriculture and forestry; 2. The reasonable expansion of existing employment uses to diversify the rural economy; 3. Outdoor sport and recreation uses; 4. Uses of land which preserve the openness of the countryside; And the following criteria are met: 1. Built development is strictly controlled to that reasonably needed for the use to operate; 2. Agriculture and forestry interests are protected; 3. New buildings or extensions are located and designed to minimise their impact on the environment, are satisfactorily screened, landscaped and are constructed of external materials appropriate to the rural setting; 4. The development as a whole will not be of a size and scale that would detract from the character of the rural landscape; 5. Affordable housing for local needs in accordance with Policy H12; 6. The reuse and adaptation of rural buildings in accordance with Policies RE9 and RE10.”
“10.19. The small area of the Borough which lies generally to the south and east of Ash and Tongham and part of the Blackwater Valley Area, is beyond the Green Belt and is particularly sensitive to development pressure. This land is an important area of the countryside because it prevents the coalescence of Ash and Tongham with Aldershot to the west (Blackwater Valley Strategic Gap) and Ash Green to the east. It is attractive countryside and should be subject to a restraint policy for its own sake. There are no settlements within the Countryside beyond the Green Belt where some limited development may be suitable. The land to the west of Ash and Tongham is also designated as the Blackwater Strategic Gap under Policy R11. Any development within this area would need to comply with this Policy. The expansion of existing employment uses within this area will not be permitted. 10.20. The Borough Council recognises the benefits to the rural economy a healthy business can bring and will normally support the expansion of existing employment uses providing the criteria set out above are met. 10.21. The countryside provides many opportunities for tourism, sport and recreation which could not be accommodated in the urban area. Such uses can play an important part in the development and diversification of the rural economy but should not damage the landscape and heritage on which it depends. 10.22. Only those forms of development set out above which comply with criteria (1) to (6) will be permitted.”
“I conclude from all this that the section (section 38(6)) requires not a simple weighing-up of the requirement of the plan against the material considerations but an exercise that recognises that while material considerations may outweigh the requirements of a development plan, the starting point is the plan which receives priority. The scales do not start off in an even balance.”
“It has been repeatedly emphasised that officers' reports such as this should not be construed as though they were enactments. They should be read as a whole and in a commonsense manner, bearing in mind the fact that they are addressed to an informed readership, in this case the respondent's planning subcommittee. In R v Selby District Council ex parte Oxton Farms [1997] EGCS 60, Judge LJ, as he then was, said this: "From time to time there will no doubt be cases when judicial review is granted on the basis of what is or is not contained in the planning officer's report. This reflects no more than the court's conclusion in the particular circumstances of the case before it. In my judgment an application for judicial review based on criticisms on the planning officer's report will not normally begin to merit consideration unless the overall effect of the report significantly misleads the committee about material matters which thereafter are left uncorrected at the meeting of the planning committee before the relevant decision is taken."”
“All of this, one has to remember, sits within the statutory framework for the making of decisions on applications for planning permission, in which those decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Government policy in the NPPF does not, and could not, modify that statutory framework, but operates within it – as paragraph 12 of the NPPF acknowledges. The Government has taken the opportunity in the NPPF to confirm its commitment to a system of development control decision-making that is "genuinely plan-led" (paragraph 17). But in any event, within the statutory framework, the status of policy in the NPPF, including the policy for decision-making in paragraph 14, is that of a material consideration outside the development plan. It is for the decision-maker to decide what weight should be given to the policy in paragraph 14 if it applies to the case in hand. Because it is government policy it is likely to command significant weight when it has to be taken into account. But the court will not intervene unless the weight given to it can be said to be unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense (see paragraph 19(3) above).”
“Mr Pike argues that the policies in the local plan are to be categorised as restrictive and consequently that they are inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. I am not at all convinced as to the merit of giving particular policies a label and then using that label as a means to argue that they inconsistent with other policies in the Framework. The Framework is intended to be just that, and one can refer in that instance to paragraph 1 of it.”
“46. That phraseology is either very narrow and specific, confining itself simply to policies which deal with the numbers and distribution of housing, ignoring any other policies dealing generally with the location of development or areas of environmental restriction, or alternatively it requires a broader approach which examines the degree to which a particular policy generally affects housing numbers, distribution and location in a significant manner. 47. It is my judgment that the language of the policy cannot sensibly be given a very narrow meaning. This would mean that policies for the provision of housing which were regarded as out of date, nonetheless would be given weight, indirectly but effectively through the operation of their counterpart provisions in policies restrictive of where development should go. Such policies are the obvious counterparts to policies designed to provide for an appropriate distribution and location of development. They may be generally applicable to all or most common forms of development, as with EV2, stating that they would not be permitted in open countryside, which as here could be very broadly defined. Such very general policies contrast with policies designed to protect specific areas or features, such as gaps between settlements, the particular character of villages or a specific landscape designation, all of which could sensibly exist regardless of the distribution and location of housing or other development.”
“Paragraph 47 of the NPPF requires the council to identify a five-year housing land supply of sites that are deliverable. As Guildford has not currently identified either a housing requirements level or a five-year housing land supply (based on our interim housing figure of 322) then the policies relating to the supply of housing are considered to be out of date. The NPPF says that planning applications for housing should be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 49 states “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites.”
“The key benefits that arise from this proposal include the provision of housing (both market and affordable housing) for which there is a significant need in the borough. Development of this site will lessen development pressure on the Green Belt. The proposal also provides for a significant area of SANG which could be of benefit to the wider area. Other factors that weigh in favour of the development are (i) the CBGB designation of the site, which offers no protection against development; (ii) a lack of any policy restricting development in this location; and (iii) a lack of a five-year housing land supply.”
“At this Outline stage, it is the principle of development that the applicant is seeking to agree. Officers must have regard to the core planning principles of the NPPF, the most relevant of which, for this application, is to “take account of the different roles and character of different areas… recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside…”
“The site is open countryside where there are policy constraints, in the form of saved policy RE4, which seeks to restrict development in open countryside beyond green belt. A housing development of this scale is not one of the general exceptions to this restriction. Policy RE4 is a constraint that weighs against the application and which is also covered in the NPPF at paragraph 17, which requires, as one of the core land use planning principles, that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised. However, because policy RE4 pre-dates the NPPF, it is not a relevant and up to date policy, and the NPPF clearly advises that no weight can be given to policy RE4 in determining this application. Therefore, other material considerations have to be considered.”
“Developing this area of open land would have a significant and adverse impact on the character of the area, and this impact weighs against the proposal. However, all other potentially harmful impacts, such as on flooding and drainage, highway movement and safety, protected species, archaeology and neighbouring amenity have been carefully considered, and with the imposition of suitable conditions, any harm can be successfully mitigated against. The relevant statutory consultees, including Natural England, Environment Agency, Surrey Wildlife Trust and Surrey County Council, have been consulted and have indicated that they have no objections to the principle of development. Paragraphs 47 and 49 of the NPPF, read alongside paragraph 14, are engaged. In the absence of a 5-year land supply, the NPPF gives strong support to the grant of planning permissions for housing schemes on sites such as this one. The need to provide an adequate supply of deliverable housing land outweighs Policy RE4 of the out of date Local Plan. The substantial and historic shortfall in supply of housing in the area is a material consideration that carries significant weight in favour of granting permission. This, together with other material considerations, outweighs the general presumption against housing development in the countryside as set out in Local Plan Policy RE4. Whilst there is potential harm to the character of the area, it is not considered that this significantly or demonstrably outweighs the considerable benefits identified in the report. On balance, given the significant benefits that the scheme would offer in terms of new homes and local infrastructure, the balance tips in favour of the development, in line with the NPPF.”
“Ok, I’m just going to run briefly through the key issues relating to policy context for the determination of this planning application. The starting point for considering applications is the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the starting point is therefore the 2003 local plan and the policies that have been saved. The application site is land that has been locally designated as Countryside beyond the Green Belt. Policy RE4 of the 2003 local plan gives this land similar protection to that of green belt. However, in March 2012, the Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this is an important material consideration as it sets out the Governments most up to date planning policies. Under the NPPF local land designations, such as Countryside beyond the Green Belt are not recognised and the principle of developing the land for housing is now acceptable. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development……All the adverse impacts and benefits have been considered within the officer report and a balancing exercise undertaken before reaching a recommendation.”
“Returning to impact on character this is an indicative plan showing how up to 400 houses could be developed on the land. The character of the land adjacent to the certain area is broadly flat and is a series of open fields subdivided by established treebelts and hedgerows and these trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The land is bound on the south by a disused railway line and is well used by local persons for recreational purposes. The land is also designated in the council’s adopted land character assessment as Tongham rural urban fringe. The land has also been carefully assessed by the applicants through the Environmental Statement which in turn has been scrutinised by our own external consultants. The report before you today clearly demonstrates that there will be a significant impact on the local area by developing the land for housing that is fully recognised in the report, however it is this impact and the harm that must be weighed against the provision of 400 houses and that is the balancing exercise that Councillors will need to do tonight.”
“Madam Mayor, Councillors, good evening. I am a planning barrister instructed by the Ash Residents Association to assess this application against the relevant legal and policy tests. We acknowledge that there is a need for housing in Guildford Borough and that this scheme presents a contribution to that need, with a number of units illustrated as being affordable. However, this is the wrong scheme to meet those needs for two principle reasons. First of all it is the wrong site. This is a green field site which still performs an important function of making it’s maintaining a separation between Ash and Tongham and preserving their prospective characters. Your own officer concedes that this development will completely change the character of the area and that that change will be significant and adverse. The NPPF is clear that local character is a material consideration, this scheme fails to preserve it and consent should be withheld accordingly.”
“Thank you Madam Mayor, in terms of whether it is the wrong site those planning committee members who know me quite well will know that I generally say that you have to deal with the planning application which is in front of you. Whether it is the wrong site or not I cannot give you advice you will need to balance all the material planning considerations and come to a view but you have to determine this application because that is the application which has been made by Bewley Homes and A2Dominion. … However, we do have a development plan in play. It is the 2003 Local Plan. We also have the NPPF and a number of ministerial statements that guides the authority in terms of its decision making processes. It would be entirely wrong for the council to issue a moratorium on development because it would not just apply to this scheme but it would apply to all planning applications whilst we determine the new Local Plan. I think that would be abdicating our responsibility as a reasonable local authority. So I know the juxtaposition of this application and the Local Plan process is difficult but it does not preclude you from making a decision tonight on the planning application.”
“2. Even if, moreover, RE4 is inconsistent with the NPPF in relation to general countryside policies, it is not inconsistent with the NPPF, at least arguably, insofar as it relates to the character and beauty of a particular piece of land. That appears to be an aspect of the justification for the policy. 3. Accordingly, even if the Authority were to have taken the view that RE4 was part inconsistent with NPPF, the approach to the development plan in relation to that part of RE4 which was not inconsistent with NPPF, would have been that there was no reason to give less weight to the breach of the development plan in relation to that aspect. As it is, the approach to RE4 is arguably unlawful because the officer’s report advises in a number of places that the policy is to be given no weight and cannot be accorded any weight.”