2. the Cumulative Success Rate for This Audit Year Is As Follows

AGENDA ITEM: 19 TO: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 24 January 2007 REPORT OF: HEAD OF BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AUTHOR: Guy Davies WARDS: As noted in appended reports

SUBJECT: Summary of appeal decisions: December 2006 PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform members of the outcome of appeals against decisions made by the Local Planning Authority RECOMMENDATION: To note the decisions and comments on each appeal

Planning Committee has authority to note the above recommendation

Background

1. In December 2006, ten decisions were received from the Planning Inspectorate. Of those, six were dismissed. Summaries of all decisions are attached. Copies of the appeal decisions have been deposited in the Members’ Room for information.

2. The cumulative success rate for this audit year is as follows:

Type Number of No of appeals Percentage of appeals received dismissed appeals dismissed Planning-related 98 58 59% Enforcement 5 5 100% Trees 3 3 100% Total 106 39 62%

3. The Council has adopted a local target of 70% of all types of appeal to be dismissed. Of those decisions received in December, only 60% were dismissed. Of greater note is that cumulatively only 62% of all types of appeal have been dismissed this audit year. That is below the Council’s local target, and less than the national average (approximately 67%).

4. A detailed analysis of appeal decisions to identify any trends is reported to the Committee annually following the end of the audit year. However, it is in the most common categories of minor residential (1-9 units) and major residential (10 or more units) appeals that the Council is failing to achieve its target, and somewhat unusually a run of advertisement appeals have also been allowed. Appeals against Committee overturn decisions are also proving difficult, with the Council losing three quarters of such cases.

5. National comparative data is assessed using Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) 204, which measures appeals allowed from a more limited sub-set of decisions where the Council has refused planning permission under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Whilst the Government has not set a national target so far this audit year, BVPI 204 performance against the Council’s local target is as follows:

Local target BVPI 204 to date 30% 38.2%

Note: the indicator is a measure of appeals allowed, and therefore aims to be below the local target.

6. Costs were sought against the Council in two of the appeals received in December 2006. Of these, one claim was dismissed (Fairlawn Paddocks, Carshalton) but the other (Grange Court, Grange Drive, Merstham) was partially allowed. Details of the reasons for the costs claims and the inspectors’ responses are included in the appended reports.

Resource Implications

7. Defending decisions on appeal is a significant part of the work of the Council’s planning service. Those appeals heard by way of hearings or public inquiries are most resource intensive. The appeal on Fairlawn Paddocks, Carshalton involved a public inquiry; and those on Grange Court, Merstham and land adjoining Woodside Works, Horley involved hearings.

8. Notification is carried out for all appeals to enable local residents and other interested parties to comment on the merits of the case. Conclusion

10. Conclusions on each appeal are included in the attached summary reports.

Background Papers: Application and appeal files Application Nos 05/00762/F Appeal Decisions Dismissed 06/00486/F Dismissed Location LAND AT MOUNT WORKS AND HAMARI, BRIGHTON ROAD, LOWER KINGSWOOD Description 1. Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 blocks comprising 15 flats and associated parking, refuse and cycle storage 2. Redevelopment to provide 12 dwellings in 3 blocks with accommodation in the roof space and associated car parking Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward KBH Category Major residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issues

 Impact on the character and appearance of the area  Effect on neighbour amenity  Parking and access

Summary of Inspector’s Comments

In both appeals, the development would be of quite a different character and density to existing dwellings in the area. The scale of the blocks in relation to the limited width of the site would result in a cramped appearance, which would be exacerbated by the proximity of the blocks to one another. The layout of the blocks, the approaches to them and the layout of parking are not likely to result in a good residential environment.

Due to the size and proximity of the blocks to neighbouring dwellings and their gardens, both developments would have an overbearing impact on amenity. Changes in level are likely to add to the dominant and oppressive effect of the proposed buildings. Facing windows and balconies on the rear elevation of block three in both appeals would be likely to give rise to the perception of overlooking and have an adverse impact on privacy in rear gardens.

Vehicle movements are likely to increase significantly from the northern access point. This would disturb the occupiers of a neighbouring property at Holbrook. Other neighbouring properties may also be affected to some degree from additional activity, particularly late at night. Visibility at the northern access is limited and is below the standard requirement. Because of the narrow width of the access and poor geometry at the entrance, vehicles have to slow right down, which is likely to create hazards and inconvenience for other road users on the A217.

Council’s Case

As above.

Matters Arising

Both these applications proposed gross overdevelopment of the site, with additionally a failure to address the marked substandard nature of the access points from the A217. Application No P/06/00403/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location LAND ADJACENT TO 61 THE SPINNEY, EPSOM DOWNS Description Two storey, four-bedroom detached house with integral garage Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward TAT Category Minor residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issue

 Impact on the character and appearance of the area

The Spinney is in an area of the North Downs developed with housing estates in the 1930s and 1950s. There is a mixture of detached and semi-detached two storey houses in a variety of styles. Plots widths vary from a minimum of about 8 metres to a maximum of about 14 metres. Spacing between dwellings varies between 0.5 metre and 5 metres to boundaries.

The proposed subdivision of the site would create two plots approximately 8 metres and 9 metres wide each. The proposed dwelling would have spacing of about 1 metre and 1.5 metres to the flank boundaries. While the proposal would be at the smaller end of the ranges within the street, it would still be within them, and the inspector concluded that the proposal would be consistent with the character and appearance of the locality.

Council’s Case

The proposed house would appear cramped, and be an overdevelopment of the site out of character with the generally greater spacing and plot widths in the locality.

Matters Arising

Infill development of one or two houses through subdivision of an existing plot is a common form of development, and it is a matter of judgement in most cases as to whether it conforms to the general character of the area. In this case, although the inspector noted that it would result in plot widths and spacings at the lower end of the range he found in the road, he concluded that it would nevertheless be consistent with other properties in the area. In allowing the appeal, the inspector decided that it was unnecessary to impose conditions limiting hours of construction, or seeking levels details and planting schedules, nor did he consider it necessary to restrict permitted development rights limiting future extension. Application No P/05/02529/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location DUXHURST FARMHOUSE, CRUTCHFIELD LANE, SIDLOW Description Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward SS Category Minor residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issue

 Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt

The property is a two-storey farmhouse, severely damaged by fire. The replacement dwelling is a chalet style design. There is no dispute over the quality of the design or the siting of the proposed dwelling. The main issue is whether it would be materially larger than the building it is to replace.

The existing dwelling has a floor area of 180 square metres and a volume of about 560 cubic metres, and the proposed dwelling would have floor area of about 234 square metres and a volume of 660 cubic metres. This equates to an increase of about 30% in floor space, and 18% in volume. It would have a slightly narrower front elevation, be about 3 metres deeper, and be similar in height.

The greater relative increase in floor space by comparison with volume is largely due to the use of the roof space to provide accommodation. The eaves line of the proposal would be just above ground level, giving the building a horizontal emphasis that would minimise the perceived bulk of the building. The lower eaves and less dominant appearance of the first floor would reduce the visual prominence of the replacement dwelling within the wider landscape. The inspector concluded that it would not be materially larger in visual terms that the building it replaced.

Council’s Case

The replacement building would be materially larger than the existing building. Although no objection was raised in principle to a replacement house, or the design approach taken, the building was too large, failed policy Ho24 and was inappropriate in the Green Belt Matters Arising

As initially drafted, the amplification to policy Ho24 suggested that a replacement house with 10% greater floor space or volume was likely to amount to a materially larger building. That guidance was omitted from the adopted 2005 plan on the advice of the Local Plan inspector, who said that the judgement on whether a building appeared materially larger rested on a visual assessment of its perceived size and scale. Nevertheless, it can be seen that this decision is definitely at the upper end of what can be considered acceptable. Application No PE/01/553 Appeal Decision Dismissed Location LAND ADJOINING WOODSIDE WORKS, THE CLOSE, HORLEY Description Enforcement notice requiring removal of an earth bund and restoration of the land to its former conditions Appeal Type Hearing Decision Level Delegated Ward HE Category Enforcement Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issue

 Ground (a) – whether planning permission should be granted

The 2 metre high bund encloses an area of hard standing adjacent to Woodside Works, a contractor’s plant depot. There is an extant enforcement notice requiring the use of the hard standing as an extension of the plant depot to be ceased, and prosecution proceedings are in progress in respect of a breach of the notice.

Along part of an adjacent footpath there are close up views of the bund, which appear as an unnatural man-made feature having little in sympathy with the flat rural landscape. It reduces the openness of the area. While there is some limited screening of the lawful element of the plant depot, this does not outweigh the harm to the openness or appearance of the countryside.

Council’s Case

As above.

Matters Arising

None. Application No P/06/00654/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location CORAL BAZAAR, QUEENS CLOSE, WALTON ON THE HILL Description Redevelopment of aquatic centre to provide six self-contained dwellings Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward T&W Category Minor residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issues

 Effect on the vitality of the local area through loss of a retail unit  Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area  Impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building at Walton Manor  Impact on trees  Highway safety  Openness of the Green Belt

The appellants submitted that the retail business is not viable. While sympathetic to that submission, the inspector considered that there was insufficient evidence to show that the site had been marketed for retail purposes. Nevertheless, the loss of the isolated retail function would have little or no effect on any other retail outlets in the vicinity and provided fuller evidence of unsuccessful marketing attempts were submitted, redevelopment of the site for another purpose could be acceptable.

The existing buildings on the site do not contribute positively to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Although some were once part of the farmyard to Walton Manor, they have been altered and extended over the years and are generally in a poor condition. There is no objection to their demolition provided a suitable replacement can be put forward.

Contrary to the Council’s view, the inspector considered the terrace of houses would be an interesting and appropriate addition to the area. However, the proposed house designed to resemble a barn would fail to preserve the character of the area, because it would obstruct views of trees within the grounds of Walton Manor, and its design would be overly dominant and inappropriate, attempting to impart an incorrect historical context that would be harmful to the integrity of the historic garden and setting of the listed building. The development would be positioned sufficiently distant from the trees on the boundaries to ensure that there would be no adverse effect upon them. Although there may be some pressure for removal of branches from some trees, this could be carried out without loss to their amenity value.

The proposed development would utilise two existing entrances, although one of these may be unauthorised. However, the traffic generated by six dwellings when compared to the existing use is unlikely to be significantly greater, and there would consequently be no detriment to the present level of highway safety. In respect of the visibility splays from the entrance closest to the junction with Chequers Lane, these could be improved by the removal of the lower branches of some conifer trees. As this entrance would only serve one dwelling, vehicle movements would be limited and the Inspector concluded would have no unacceptable effect on highway safety.

The site lies within the Green Belt and the development is inappropriate. Although the site would be tidied up and the built footprint would be reduced, the ‘barn house’ would have an impact on that part of the site presently largely undeveloped and the terrace of houses would be higher than the existing building. There would be no overall improvement in terms of openness.

Council’s Case

The development gave rise to the loss of a retail unit, and there was insufficient evidence to show that it was not viable for continued retail use by another operator. The development was inappropriate in the Green Belt. It was an overdevelopment of the site, harming the character of the Conservation Area. The development also failed to respect the setting of the adjacent listed building and its historic garden, which included an ancient monument. The Highway Authority had raised objections to the use of the nearest access to the junction with Chequers Lane. Lastly, trees that surround the site would come under pressure for lopping or removal from future residents.

Matters Arising

While the appeal was dismissed, the inspector did not accept a number of the reasons raised by the Council, notably those relating to highway safety and trees. It is also clear that, subject to further suitable information, the loss of the retail unit will be difficult to resist. However, the amount of development on the site, and its design and siting are all aspects that will have to be significantly changed, if the appellant is to address all the criticisms made by the inspector. Application No P/05/00764/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location GRANGE COURT, GRANGE DRIVE, OFF LONDON ROAD SOUTH, MERSTHAM Description Two single storey dwellings built within a walled garden Appeal Type Hearing Decision Level Committee Ward M Category Minor residential Contrary to rec Yes Costs Sought Yes

Main Issues

 Impact on the character and appearance of the Merstham Village Conservation Area, including trees  Effect on neighbour amenity

Grange Court, in contrast to much of the Conservation Area, is a substantial building set within its own grounds. The landscaped grounds contribute to the setting of Grange Court, and from the front these would be largely unaltered. The proposed wall that would screen the two dwellings would divide and significantly reduce the extent of the grounds to the rear, but sufficient space would remain to preserve the setting of the existing building. The substantial tree cover to the south would largely screen the dwellings from properties outside the Conservation Area.

The dwellings are of unusual design, being single storey and mono aspect so that they are concealed behind the wall when viewed from Grange Court. PPS1 is supportive of high quality and inclusive design that adds to the character and quality of an area. The inspector concluded that, although the buildings are of a contemporary design, and differ in appearance from other properties in the conservation area, they are well designed and would add to the variety of buildings in the area.

Committee members determined that the development would result in the loss of an ash tree, and that a replacement offered by the appellant would take many years to grow to the same height. This view runs counter to an arboricultural report submitted with the application that suggests although the canopy may need to be trimmed, the proposal would not necessarily prejudice the retention of the tree. In addition both the Council’s Tree Officer and the arboricultural consultant considered the tree to be in poor health with a limited life expectancy. The ash tree is an attractive feature in the area but has a limited life expectancy. When first planted the replacement would only be seen within the grounds of Grange Court, but would in due course grow up to be apparent in views from outside the site. Given the limited life left of the ash tree, its replacement is acceptable.

Vehicle movements associated with the development would be of a low speed when close to flats within Grange Court, and would be separated by an area of landscaping some 9 metres wide. Noise and disturbance would therefore be limited, and would not be discernible from that arising from the existing vehicles using the site.

Council’s Case

The decision was made contrary to the professional advice. The reasons for refusal were that the development would harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area by reducing the extent of the grounds around Grange Court, and resulting in the loss an ash tree; and that activity generated by the new dwellings would cause noise and disturbance to existing residents in Grange Court.

The inspector noted that the loss of part of the grounds to Grange Court, and the effect on neighbour amenity were largely matters of judgement. Although disagreeing with members’ views on these points, the inspector noted that members had visited the site, and an explanation of the refusal reasons had been properly given at the hearing.

However, no convincing evidence was offered on the removal and replacement of the ash tree. Members of the Council had been given the same professional advice by the Council’s Tree Officer and in the arboricultural report submitted with the application that the ash tree was in poor health. The Council’s Tree Officer also supported its replacement with a new specimen to ensure a longer-term feature. No evidence had been offered at the hearing to demonstrate that this technical advice was wrong, and in this respect the Council acted against the advice of their officers without sound reason, resulting in unnecessary expense. A partial award of costs was therefore made.

Matters Arising

In planning appeals, costs are normally borne by each side. However, in exceptional cases where one party has acted unreasonably, and that has cause the other party unnecessary expense, the inspector may award partial or full costs.

When matters of judgement are concerned, it is unusual for inspectors to award costs against a Council unless the decision is clearly irrational. However, when relating to technical matters, particularly where specialist advice has been sought, it becomes much more likely that costs will be awarded if that advice is ignored without good reason. In this case, the Committee did not pay sufficient regard to professional advice that ash tree was in poor health, or the fact that a replacement tree had been offered, in reaching the view that its loss would harm the appearance of the Conservation Area, hence the award of costs. Application No P/05/01388/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location FAIRLAWN PADDOCKS, 18 FAIRLAWN ROAD, CARSHALTON Description Retention of a hay barn and implement store Appeal Type Public Inquiry Decision Level Delegated Ward BV Category Other - commercial Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought Yes

Main Issue

 Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt

The site is used for the grazing of the appellant’s horses. In addition to the barn, there is a block of three stables and a tack room, for which planning permission was granted in 2005. The appellant claims he needs the barn to store bedding and feed for the horses, and shelter a number of related horse drawn trolleys and machinery.

The Council’s policy as detailed in Supplementary Planning Guidance was to restrict new horse-related development to three stables and a tackroom/store. Having heard conflicting advice from the appellant and the Council’s witnesses, the inspector concluded that hay and straw could be kept outside under cover without the need for a barn, if suitably protected. Similarly, the horse-drawn trolley could also be stored outside. The barn was not therefore essential to the outdoor recreational use, and was inappropriate in the Green Belt. Although only limited views could be made of it, it nevertheless reduced the openness of the site and therefore harmed the openness of the Green Belt.

The inspector considered but did not accept that there were any very special circumstances that outweighed the harm to the Green Belt. Although the Council’s agricultural advisors accepted that there was insufficient grazing on the site to support the horses without imported feed, and therefore accepted the need for a barn, there were alternatives to storing such feed which had been debated at the inquiry. Council’s Case

As above.

The appellant sought costs against the Council, because they considered that insufficient weight had been given to the advice given by the Council’s agricultural advisor, and because they had not indicated in an informative on the earlier permission that a barn was unlikely to be acceptable. The inspector dismissed this claim. The Council’s policy on horse-related development was clear, and had been consistently applied. There was no reason why the Council should have placed an informative on previous decisions saying what other forms of development may or may not be acceptable on the land.

Matters Arising

Unusually the planning decision had differed from the professional advice received from the Council’s agricultural advisor. However, this was a planning decision and whilst agricultural advice is helpful, there were other issues to be taken into account as shown above. In this case, the Council was able to justify the lesser weight afforded to the advice received. Application No P/05/01303/F Appeal Decision Dismissed Location RIDGWAY COURT, RIDGEWAY ROAD, REDHILL Description Extension to an existing block of flats to provide three additional flats Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward MSJ Category Minor residential Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issues

 Effect on neighbour amenity  Effect on parking  Effect on trees

The proposal would extend across the western half of the northern façade, with internal rearrangements and the insertion of new windows. However, the loss of light to existing flats would be severe and the close proximity of the flank wall of the extension, some 9 metres high, would be oppressive to the bedroom windows of three flats.

Although the appellant argues that changes to the parking arrangements on the wider site would increase provision, in reality it appears that there would be a diminution in useable spaces. Ridgeway Court is already heavily parked, and in the absence of any proper control over the parking arrangements, or encouragement to use alternative means of transport, the development would be incompatible with the transport infrastructure in the area.

The formation of spaces in front of nos. 1-12 would cut into a bank, affecting the root spread of several trees including a substantial beech tree and two smaller pine trees. This would significantly reduce the effectiveness of this part of the tree belt and prejudice the long-term health of the trees affected.

Council’s Case

As above.

Matters Arising

None. Application No P/05/02801/F Appeal Decision Allowed Location 68 WOOD STREET, MERSTHAM Description Alterations to the heights of existing garden walls Appeal Type Written reps Decision Level Delegated Ward M Category Householder Contrary to rec N/A Costs Sought No

Main Issue

 Impact on the character and appearance of the area

The site occupies a corner plot, with large open front and side gardens. A garage with accommodation in the roof space has recently been built in the small rear garden, and as compensation for the area lost, part of the side garden has been enclosed with walls. A condition on that permission required these walls to be no more than one metre in height. However, as built, parts are two metres in height. The appeal seeks to retain and complete these walls at the higher height.

A distinctive feature of Wood Street is the constriction formed by the substantial hedge at no. 81 and the 2-metre high boundary fence between nos. 66 and 68. This lies immediately adjacent to the appeal proposal, which would reinforce this characteristic constriction. There are other similar enclosures, albeit by hedges or fences rather than brick walls, as features of other houses in the vicinity with two road frontages. The walls would therefore be consistent with the character and appearance of the locality.

Council’s Case

One of the features of the estate is the open aspect of the estate, with large open gardens, particularly on corner plots. The higher walls would interrupt this sense of space, and erode the character and appearance of the area.

Matters Arising