Bewley Homes Plc & Ors, R (on the application of) v Waverley Borough Council [2017] EWHC 1776 (Admin)

“23.… The true sense of the expression “in general conformity with the strategic policies contained in the development plan” is simply that if there are relevant “strategic policies” contained in the adopted development plan for the local planning authority’s area, or part of that area, the neighbourhood development plan must not be otherwise than in “general conformity” with those “strategic policies”

“29. I entirely agree with Supperstone J that the basic conditions cannot be equated with soundness as understood from paragraph 182 of the Framework. I would, however, with respect, differ from the suggestion that "the only statutory requirement imposed by Condition (e) is that the Neighbourhood Plan as a whole should be in general conformity with the adopted development plan as a whole". That observation does not reflect the clear statutory language of paragraph 8(2)(e). First, this basic condition relates to the strategic policies of the development plan, not the development plan as a whole. Those strategic policies which are identified will have to be considered as a whole in addressing the question of whether or not the neighbourhood plan is in general conformity with them. This underlines the point made by Supperstone J in paragraph 82 that tension or conflict between one policy of the neighbourhood plan and one policy of the local plan is not the matter at stake. Where there are no strategic policies in a local plan, then paragraph 8(2)(e) is not engaged, as Lewis J concluded in R (on the application of Gladman Developments Ltd) v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2014] EWHC 4323, and the absence of strategic policies does not preclude as a matter of law a neighbourhood plan being produced. 30. The question which is posed under paragraph 8(2)(e) is one which is entirely a matter of planning judgment. The phrase "general conformity" was considered in Persimmon Homes (Thames Valley) Ltd v Stevenage Borough Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1365, in which Laws LJ observed at paragraphs 28 and 29 as follows: “28. [...] I agree with the judge (at [53]) that to read 'general conformity' as simply meaning that the proposals of the local plan should be 'in character' with the structure plan would be to accept too broad a construction. On the other hand, there are the features to which I have earlier referred – the long lead-times involved, the fact that the exigencies of planning policy may present a changing picture, and the statutory words themselves. In construing the general conformity requirement the court should in my judgment favour a balanced approach by which these different factors may be accommodated. I consider that on its true construction the requirement may allow considerable room for manoeuvre within the local plan in the measures taken to reflect structure plan policy, so as to meet the various and changing contingencies that can arise. In particular (for it is relevant here) measures may properly be introduced into a local plan to reflect the fact, where it arises, that some aspect of the structure plan is itself to be subject to review. This flexibility is not unlimited. Thus measures of this kind may not pre-judge the outcome of such a review. They must respect the structure plan policies as they are, while allowing for the possibility that they may be changed. I doubt whether it is possible to derive any more focussed conclusion on the construction of the general conformity requirement. [...] 29. [...] But if the right interpretation of 'general conformity' is, as in agreement with the judge I would hold, a balanced one, it will as I have said allow what may be a considerable degree of movement within the local plan to meet the various and changing contingencies that can arise. In that case the question whether the local plan is in general conformity with the structure plan is likely to admit of more than one reasonable answer, all of them consistent with the proper construction of the statute and of the relevant documents. In those circumstances the answer at length arrived at will be a matter of planning judgment and not of legal reasoning.” 31. In his judgment, Lloyd LJ added the following observations: “71. The use of the phrase 'general conformity' leaves some scope for flexibility and even, as noted above, for some conflict. The context is that of the structure plan authority setting a general policy, which could no doubt be regarded as a strategy, for its area, leaving it to the local plan authorities within the area to implement those policies and that strategy by detailed policies. It cannot be open to a local plan authority to subvert the general policies, or to resolve that it will not give effect to a general policy within its area. It is open to such an authority to exercise some flexibility as to how the general policy is implemented, though the degree of flexibility may depend on the nature of the general policy. [...] [...] 86. As I said at paragraph 68 above, it is not sensible to attempt to define the statutory phrase 'in general conformity with' a structure plan, and I do not propose to try. However, it seems to me that, at least, in order to be in general conformity with a structure plan, the local plan must give effect to the main policies set out in the structure plan, and must do so in a way which does not contradict or subvert their achievement. There is room for flexibility, subject to the terms in which the general policies are stated. There may be scope for variations of detail as regards timing, for example. But the local plan must not put obstacles in the way of the fulfilment of the strategic policies in the structure plan such that they will not, or may well not, be achieved as provided for in the structure plan. Otherwise the purpose of the structure plan, and the basis of the relationship between one structure plan and a series of local plans would be altogether undermined, with the purpose behind an overall strategic policy being implemented differently and in conflicting ways in different parts of the area governed by the structure plan, and in some of those parts possibly not implemented at all.” 32. These observations demonstrate that in exercising the planning judgment in relation to general conformity there is sufficient elasticity in the evaluation to accommodate some conflict with strategic policies as well as the prospect of strategic policies being reviewed. But that elasticity has limits, and the extent of the limit will be part and parcel of the planning judgment.” “28. [...] I agree with the judge (at [53]) that to read 'general conformity' as simply meaning that the proposals of the local plan should be 'in character' with the structure plan would be to accept too broad a construction. On the other hand, there are the features to which I have earlier referred – the long lead-times involved, the fact that the exigencies of planning policy may present a changing picture, and the statutory words themselves. In construing the general conformity requirement the court should in my judgment favour a balanced approach by which these different factors may be accommodated. I consider that on its true construction the requirement may allow considerable room for manoeuvre within the local plan in the measures taken to reflect structure plan policy, so as to meet the various and changing contingencies that can arise. In particular (for it is relevant here) measures may properly be introduced into a local plan to reflect the fact, where it arises, that some aspect of the structure plan is itself to be subject to review. This flexibility is not unlimited. Thus measures of this kind may not pre-judge the outcome of such a review. They must respect the structure plan policies as they are, while allowing for the possibility that they may be changed. I doubt whether it is possible to derive any more focussed conclusion on the construction of the general conformity requirement. [...] 29. [...] But if the right interpretation of 'general conformity' is, as in agreement with the judge I would hold, a balanced one, it will as I have said allow what may be a considerable degree of movement within the local plan to meet the various and changing contingencies that can arise. In that case the question whether the local plan is in general conformity with the structure plan is likely to admit of more than one reasonable answer, all of them consistent with the proper construction of the statute and of the relevant documents. In those circumstances the answer at length arrived at will be a matter of planning judgment and not of legal reasoning.” “71. The use of the phrase 'general conformity' leaves some scope for flexibility and even, as noted above, for some conflict. The context is that of the structure plan authority setting a general policy, which could no doubt be regarded as a strategy, for its area, leaving it to the local plan authorities within the area to implement those policies and that strategy by detailed policies. It cannot be open to a local plan authority to subvert the general policies, or to resolve that it will not give effect to a general policy within its area. It is open to such an authority to exercise some flexibility as to how the general policy is implemented, though the degree of flexibility may depend on the nature of the general policy. [...] [...] 86. As I said at paragraph 68 above, it is not sensible to attempt to define the statutory phrase 'in general conformity with' a structure plan, and I do not propose to try. However, it seems to me that, at least, in order to be in general conformity with a structure plan, the local plan must give effect to the main policies set out in the structure plan, and must do so in a way which does not contradict or subvert their achievement. There is room for flexibility, subject to the terms in which the general policies are stated. There may be scope for variations of detail as regards timing, for example. But the local plan must not put obstacles in the way of the fulfilment of the strategic policies in the structure plan such that they will not, or may well not, be achieved as provided for in the structure plan. Otherwise the purpose of the structure plan, and the basis of the relationship between one structure plan and a series of local plans would be altogether undermined, with the purpose behind an overall strategic policy being implemented differently and in conflicting ways in different parts of the area governed by the structure plan, and in some of those parts possibly not implemented at all.”

“The Neighbourhood Plan Planning Strategy defines a built-up area boundary to provide a definition of countryside and Policy FNP10 gives priority to protecting the countryside from inappropriate development outside of the Built Up Area Boundary.”

“4. I stated that the 2002 plan was only written to meet needs to 2006. Although it had been necessary to amend the 2002 LP boundary in order to meet needs beyond the period to 2006, in carrying out this exercise the dFNP had continued to respect core aims of the 2002 LP such as maintaining and enhancing the distinctive character of the Borough and the main environmental assets including natural and cultural resources by, for example, the prevention of coalescence and the protection of valued landscapes. 5. I also stated that some of the changes had taken into account new development and planning permission since 2002, with the dFNP boundary being drawn to include development which had taken place (or was permitted to take place) outside the 2002 LP boundary since the adoption of the 2002 LP.”

“4.11 The development plan for the purposes of this examination is the adopted Waverley Local Plan, 2002 (for the period up to 2006), comprising the policies which have been saved. I note the Borough Council has raised no overriding concerns regarding the general conformity of the neighbourhood plan’s policies with the strategic policies of the adopted plan. This is not surprising given the saved policies are aging and the emerging local plan for the area is now at examination stage. 4.12 The Basic Conditions Statement sets out how the Plan’s policies have been assessed for their alignment with the emerging strategic Local Plan policies which have relevance to Farnham. The Borough Council comments that “the Neighbourhood Plan in many respects supports and reflects the emerging Waverley Local Plan, for example in terms of drawing on its evidence base and seeking to provide for the development needed in the town”. 4.13 Whilst it is not a statutory requirement for a Neighbourhood Plan to be in general conformity with the strategic policies of an emerging plan, in practical terms the alignment advised by the PPG will assist in preventing the plan from becoming quickly out of date. The PPG states, inter alia, that “where a neighbourhood plan is brought forward before an up-to-date Local Plan is in place the qualifying body and the local planning authority should discuss and aim to agree the relationship between policies in the emerging neighbourhood plan, the emerging Local Plan and the adopted development plan with appropriate regard to national policy and guidance”. 4.14 Subject to the recommended modifications that I set out later in the report on a number of detailed matters, I am satisfied that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan is in general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted plan and has been aligned with the emerging Waverley Borough Local Plan, at least up to that Plan’s pre-submission consultation stage (August-October 2016), in order for it to be as up to date as possible. ……. 4.23 I have considered all of these representations together with the discussions and submissions during the Public Hearing and I have reached the following conclusions. Firstly, there is no formal built up area defined for Farnham within the adopted Local Plan (2002). Rather the inner boundary of various countryside policies defines a “white” area extending from the inner edge of those policy areas which represents the then existing urban area of Farnham. I conclude that, in principle, it is appropriate for the Plan to seek to define a BUAB which represents the current built up settlement limits of Farnham. Secondly, I have studied the background document on the BUAB which forms part of the Plan’s evidence base. It describes the six guiding principles that were applied to the assessment of the proposed boundary to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach was taken. I am satisfied that the methodology described in the background paper is based on sound planning principles. With the passage of time since the Local Plan was adopted in 2002, it is inevitable, in my view, that the definition of a new BUAB for Farnham will lead to some differences to the position that existed in 2002. I have carefully studied those parts of the BUAB where land is now included and those areas which are not within the proposed BUAB, having previously been with the urban area of Farnham as described above. In all cases, I consider that the proposed BUAB is appropriate and that the methodology for its definition in those areas has been applied on a consistent basis. Lastly, I conclude that the proposed BUAB is not the sole policy criterion by which proposals for new development will be judged, either within or beyond the urban area. The Plan together with the current adopted Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan each contain other policies against which to also measure the acceptability of new development. …… 4.34 As previously observed, it is the case that a neighbourhood plan can be prepared and adopted before or at the same time as an emerging Local Plan. Furthermore, the requirement of the Basic Conditions is that the neighbourhood plan “must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan for the area”

“These observations demonstrate that in exercising the planning judgment in relation to general conformity there is sufficient elasticity in the evaluation to accommodate some conflict with strategic policies as well as the prospect of strategic policies being reviewed. But that elasticity has limits, and the extent of the limit will be part and parcel of the planning judgment.”

“80 I should also add a cautionary note about the legal scope of the process for examining a neighbourhood plan. The more investigative scrutiny involved in the examination of a local plan in order to determine whether the draft policies and proposed allocations are “sound”, including whether they are justified by reference to the evidence base relied upon by the local planning authority and reasonable alternative options, can result in a “competition” between rival sites. The extent to which such a case or exercise could be advanced in the examination of a neighbourhood plan will depend upon whether it falls within the scope of paragraphs 8 (1) and (6) of schedule 4B to TCPA which in many instances will simply turn upon whether the plan meets the basic conditions in paragraph 8 (2).”

“The report must - (a) give reasons for each of its recommendations, and (b) contain a summary of its main findings.” (a) give reasons for each of its recommendations, and (b) contain a summary of its main findings.”

“36. The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn. The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications. Decision letters must be read in a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision.”

“56 With regard to the reasons challenge the Claimant submits that the principles on the duty to give reasons set out in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No.2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953 apply and so both the Examiner and CDC were obliged to give reasons dealing with the “principal important controversial issues” raised by the Claimant's representations in the examination (paragraph 36 of South Bucks). Mr Morgan on behalf of CDC did not dispute that the principles in the South Bucks case are, in general terms, applicable and so I will proceed on the assumption that that is correct. 57 However, I should record that in my judgment the question of whether the South Bucks principles apply, with or without modification, may need to be considered in a subsequent case. I say that for a number of reasons. South Bucks was concerned with the obligation to give reasons for a decision determining a planning appeal. Such appeals may involve a range of issues raised by a number of parties to do with the planning merits of a proposal for development. By contrast the ambit of an examination into a neighbourhood plan is rather different. Generally, the main focus is on whether or not the basic conditions in paragraph 8(2) of schedule 4B are satisfied, or would be satisfied by the making of modifications to the plan. The level of scrutiny is less than that applied to the examination of a local plan and the obligation to give reasons must be limited to matters falling within the true ambit of the examination process. 58 The obligation on the Examiner is to provide a report which (a) give reasons for each of its recommendations and (b) contains a summary of its main findings (paragraph 10(6) of schedule 4B to TCPA 1990). The Examiner may only make recommendations as to whether the plan should be submitted to a referendum because it satisfies the basic conditions and the statutory requirements, or whether modifications should be made in order to satisfy those requirements, or, if they are not satisfied, that the plan should not proceed. If the plan is to be submitted to a referendum the Examiner may also make a recommendation as to whether the area for the referendum should extend beyond the area covered by the plan (see paragraph 10(5) of schedule 4B). Similarly, the local planning authority (a) is obliged to consider each of the Examiner's recommendations (and the reasons for them) and to decide what action to take in response to each recommendation (paragraph 12(2)), (b) may consider the making of modifications, for example in order to secure compliance with the basic conditions (paragraphs 12(5) and (6)), and (c) is obliged to give reasons for the decisions it takes under paragraph 12 of schedule 4B (paragraph 12(11)). Thus the statutory scheme delimits the matters which the Examiner and the local planning authority are able to consider, which in turn will affect the application of the obligation to give reasons. At the very least the statutory process will affect what may be considered by the Court to have been the “principal important controversial issues”; they will not necessarily be any matter raised in representations on the draft plan.”

“Once again, the Neighbourhood Plan’s housing provision remains within the SANG capacity at current occupancy rates. Neighbourhood Plan Policy FNP15 seeks the provision of smaller dwellings but clearly if the average occupancy of dwellings does rise in Farnham there is some tolerance in this capacity before additional SANG would be required. As you are aware, the Neighbourhood Plan allocates land at Coxbridge Farm (Policy FNP14(i)) for approximately 350 dwellings. The site promoters have indicated that the effects of their development could be mitigated through the provision of ‘bespoke’ SANG, either on- or off-site. Other suitable sites may seek this option during the plan period and developers may offer their own bespoke solution to mitigate against any adverse effects on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Such mitigation measures will clearly need to be agreed by Natural England. As a contingency for higher occupancy levels, it is proposed that Neighbourhood Plan Policy FNP12 be revised to make a more explicit reference to bespoke SANG (the policy already refers to the standards which a bespoke SANG would need to meet but does not make specific reference to bespoke SANG): Waverley Borough Council also made it clear at the Examination that they were actively pursuing land for additional SANG should this be required for later in the Plan period. I attach a copy of the proposed revised Neighbourhood Plan text and policy. The Examiner has requested that Natural England review the updated position set out above and comment on the proposed revised policy. In addition, it would be helpful to understand whether Natural England would see a need to reconsider the Sustainability Appraisal on the basis of the revised policy. Finally, it would be helpful to have the view from Natural England on whether the revised policy would be likely to change the conclusions of the HRA that no likely significant effects are expected to the eight Natura 2000 sites and one Ramsar site within 20km of Farnham as result of the revised text and Policy.”

“Thank you for your email and your update. I can confirm that I see this as a relatively minor amendment to the neighbourhood plan and thus not a material change in circumstance to warrant update of either the Sustainability Appraisal or the Habitats Regulations Assessment. Ultimately the SPA is still protected and likely significant effects continue to be screened out. I have read through the four page document you have sent through to me with suggested amendments. I can confirm that Natural England are comfortable with the changes and have no comments to make.”

“4.36 The third policy issue which I wished to discuss in greater detail at the Public Hearing concerned the Plan’s provisions for SANG capacity within the Plan area, arising from the designated SPAs at Thames Basin Heaths and Wealden Heaths. Farnham is within the buffer zone of these SPAs which has a direct relationship upon the projected capacity for new dwellings in the Plan area. The Borough Council undertook an assessment of potential opportunities for new SANG in the Farnham area in April 2015, including sites put forward as part of the Call for Sites undertaken during the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan. However, in accordance with the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy Review 2016 (which was adopted by the Borough Council in July 2016) the strategic SANG capacity of Farnham Park can be increased during the Plan period. I do however note that some potential SANG capacity may come forward at part of the restored Farnham Quarry. I consider that this document provides a robust and up to date assessment of the unallocated (enhanced) SANG capacity in Farnham, and forms an appropriate basis upon which to assess potential avoidance measures. Under the Habitats Regulations, the Borough Council is the competent authority to consider whether applications for development are likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. 4.37 Policy FNP12 in the Plan provides the proposed policy framework for determining the mitigation measures that will be necessary, in the form of enhanced SANG capacity, that will be required for new residential development. Whilst the policy, as drafted, refers to the provision of SANG meeting certain criteria, it does not explicitly refer to the option for bespoke SANG capacity, either on-site or off-site, to be provided by developers as part of their development proposals. Following discussion at the Public Hearing, I consider that the policy should explicitly identify this option, which in my assessment could improve the opportunities for achieving new SANG capacity in the Farnham area and thus contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. 4.38 Following the Public Hearing, the Town Council and the Borough Council have put forward a series of amendments to the text of the Plan and to Policy FNP12 to update and clarify the content of the Plan with regard to the provision of additional SANG capacity. These amendments were published by the Town Council and have subsequently been agreed with Natural England, who raise no objections. I consider that these amendments fully accord with the SPA Avoidance Strategy Review and following consideration of the comments made by other parties, I recommend the following modifications: …. “Page 40 – 2nd column, 1st paragraph – delete final two sentences and replace with the following text: “At current monitored levels of residential occupancy of 1.98 persons per dwelling, the Waverley Borough Council SANG Topic Paper, August 2016, states that the unallocated (enhanced) SANG capacity was 1,370 dwellings (at 1 April 2016). This method of re-assessment has been verified by Natural England and represents a significant increase in the amount of SANG available at Farnham Park as an avoidance measure….. Policy FN15 seeks the provision of smaller dwellings but clearly if the average occupancy of dwellings does rise in Farnham, there is some tolerance in this capacity before additional SANG would be required. Certain site promoters have indicated that the effects of their development could be mitigated through the provision of ‘bespoke’ SANG, either on-site or off-site. Other suitable sites may seek this option during the plan period and developers may offer their own bespoke solutions to mitigate against any adverse effects on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Such mitigation measures will need to be agreed by Natural England.” ….. Policy FNP12 Amend criterion i) and add new criterion ii) as follows: i appropriate contributions towards the provision of …SANG at Farnham Park; or ii a bespoke solution to provide adequate mitigation measures to avoid any potential adverse effects; ”

“Other than Farnham Park which has a capacity to accommodate residents from approximately 1,370 dwellings …., no suitable alternative strategic SANG site is currently available to support additional housing in the period to 2031.” …… Page 46 – 3rd column – delete text alongside Summary table, and replace with the following text: “At current occupancy rates (and even if these were to increase slightly) there is sufficient SANG capacity at Farnham Park to mitigate against the adverse effects of the housing projected to come forward as a result of the Neighbourhood Plan. Waverley Borough Council is monitoring the situation closely and is actively seeking further provision whilst bespoke SANG is also allowed should this be necessary.”… 4.39 In conclusion on this issue, I consider that with the above-listed recommended modifications, this ensures that the Plan meets the Basic Conditions, adequately addresses the policy requirements for the provision of additional SANG capacity in the Farnham area and in particular the requirements of Natural England.”

“Policy FNP10 Protect and Enhance the Countryside Outside of the Built up Area Boundary, as defined on Map A, priority will be given to protecting the countryside from inappropriate development. A proposal for development will only be permitted where it would: a) Be in accordance with Policies FNP16, FNP17 and FNP20 in the Neighbourhood Plan or other relevant planning policies applying to the area, b) Protect the Green Belt c) Conserve and enhance landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting – including those Areas of Great Landscape Value under consideration for designation as AONB, d) Retain the landscape character of, and not have a detrimental impact on, areas shown on Map E as having high landscape value and sensitivity and Map F Old Park as having high landscape sensitivity and historic value; and e) Enhance the landscape value of the countryside and, where new planting is involved, use appropriate native species.”

“4.29 I turn now to consider the individual housing site allocations contained within Policy FNP14 of the Plan and which are numbered FNP14 a) – FNP14 j). Firstly, I note that the proposed sites have all been confirmed as available by the landowners concerned and that a site selection process of seeking to accommodate new housing, as far as possible, on previously developed or “brownfield” land has been followed. This accords with national policy and is an important aspect of seeking to achieve sustainable patterns of development. I also note that other principles of national policy have been followed in identifying potential sites, including the protection of landscapes of high value and sensitivity, the protection of the Green Belt and the avoidance of flood risk. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed housing allocation sites all accord with the relevant national and local policy guidelines.”

“4.33 In reaching my conclusions and recommendations regarding the proposed housing site allocations in the Plan, I have given full and careful consideration to those representations which seek to make additional allocations of land for residential development in the Plan. They have included submissions that the Plan be either held in abeyance pending the Examination of the emerging Waverley Local Plan 2013-2032 or found to not satisfy the Basic Conditions. Such representations have generally been linked to other matters, including regard to national and local policy, housing need, housing supply, housing delivery and the extent of the BUAB for Farnham. In the majority of cases, I note that those parties proposing additional allocations of land and specific sites for housing in the Plan area have also made the appropriate submissions and representations to the Borough Council and in some cases, by the submission of planning applications. Having considered all of these matters, it is my assessment that they are essentially strategic issues which fall, quite properly, to be tested and considered at the Local Plan Examination.”

“Contribution to the Achievement of Sustainable Development 4.9 The Basic Conditions Statement (at Section 5) describes how the Plan contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. It notes that the Plan “contributes to the achievement of sustainable development by: • planning positively for housing development to help meet the needs of present and future generations by identifying opportunities to meet housing need up to 2031; • locating new development where it relates well to the existing town, incorporating sustainable transport links, and protects the high quality for business or tourist environmental assets of the Plan area; • contributing to building a strong local economy and supporting the rural economy by allocating a new site for business use; supporting the retention, intensification and regeneration of the main clusters of business activities in Farnham; promoting an Enterprise and Incubation Hub at the University of the Creative Arts; focussing on the vitality of the town and neighbourhood centres and supporting the change of use or extension of rural building for business or tourist purposes; • supporting the retention and enhancement of community and leisure facilities which are important to the social fabric of the town and the distinctive areas within it; • protecting and enhancing the high quality natural, built and historic environment of Farnham and the surrounding countryside (including the integrity of the SPA) by ensuring SANG capacity to serve development; encouraging high quality development that responds to the distinctive character of Farnham and protecting and enhancing the area’s public open space, biodiversity, landscape quality and historic assets; and • securing the necessary social, physical and green infrastructure needed to support the proposed development, or the additional infrastructure identified in the Neighbourhood Plan which can be provided in a timely manner.” 4.10 I have reviewed the Plan in this context. I note, in particular, that the Neighbourhood Plan Strategy set out in Section 4 of the Plan clearly has placed the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the heart of the Plan and its policies. Again, I do consider there is a need to make a number of detailed modifications to fully address this Basic Condition. Subject to those modifications which are set out later in this report, I consider the Plan will contribute to the achievement of sustainable development and that it has been prepared in order to meet that fundamental objective.”

“I have given full and careful consideration to those representations which seek to make additional allocations of land for residential development in the Plan.”