Mrs Charlotte Dyer Our ref: APP/Y3615/W/16/3159894 Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Your ref: 8091/2461/30987614 Exchange House Primrose Street LONDON EC2A 2EG 13 June 2018 Dear Madam TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY WISLEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LAND AT WISLEY AIRFIELD, HATCH LANE, OCKHAM APPLICATION REF: 15/P/00012 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Clive Hughes BA(Hons) MA, DMS, MRTPI, who held a public local inquiry from 19 September 2017 – 25 October 2017 into your client’s appeal against the decision of Guildford Borough Council (‘the Council’) to refuse your application for planning permission for the phased development of a new settlement of up 2068 dwellings incorporating up to 60 sheltered accommodation units and 8 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated infrastructure including accesses onto the A3 (Ockham Interchange), Ockham Lane and Old Lane and revised access to Elm Corner, a secondary school, a primary school, community provision, nursery provision, health facility, a local centre (incorporating food & drink, retail, a visitor centre and offices), employment area, sports and recreational facilities (incorporating a floodlit sports pitch and pavilion); Sustainable Drainage Systems and an area of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace incorporating a landform feature and car parking; the erection of associated utilities infrastructure; the development proposal to incorporate the demolition/removal of the runway and VOR Beacon (and any associated outbuildings), in accordance with application reference 15/P/00012, dated 16 December 2014 (as amended1). 2. On 31 October 2016, this appeal was recovered for the Secretary of State's determination, in pursuance of section 79 of, and paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Inspector’s recommendation and summary of the decision 3. The Inspector recommended that the appeal be dismissed. 1 See paragraph 6 below Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Tel: 0303 444 1626 Jean Nowak, Decision Officer Email: [email protected] Planning Casework Unit 3rd Floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF 4. For the reasons given below, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions and agrees with his recommendation. He has decided to dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission. A copy of the Inspector’s report (IR) is enclosed. All references to paragraph numbers, unless otherwise stated, are to that report. Environmental Statement 5. In reaching this position, the Secretary of State has taken into account the Environmental Statement which was submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the subsequent addenda (CD14, CD14.1 and CD14.2). The Secretary of State is satisfied that the Environmental Statement complies with the above Regulations and that sufficient information has been provided for him to assess the environmental impact of the proposal. Procedural matters 6. The Secretary of State notes the Inspector’s comments about amended plans at IR1.9 – 1.10. He agrees that no prejudice would be caused by determining the appeal on the basis of the amended plans, and he has proceeded on that basis. Matters arising since the close of the inquiry 7. The Secretary of State has received requests from both Guildford Borough Council (dated 30 May 2018) and Savills (dated 30 January, 13 March, 6 June and 11 June 2018) all requesting that he delay his decision, together with a letter from the Wisley Action Group and Ockham Parish Council (dated 30 May 2018) asking him to adhere to his published timetable. He has also received a letter from Anne Milton MP about issuing this decision during Guildford’s Local Plan Inquiry. Careful consideration has been given to delaying this decision, but in view of the range of factors to be resolved, we have concluded that the most satisfactory approach would be to decide the appeal today. All these letters are being replied to separately today. 8. A number of representations were received following the close of the inquiry. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the issues raised do not affect his decision, and no new issues were raised in this correspondence to warrant further investigation or necessitate referrals back to parties. A list of representations received (including those referred to in paragraph 7) is at Annex A and copies may be obtained from the address at the foot of the first page of this letter. 9. Five applications for full awards of costs were made by the Cobham Conservation and Heritage Trust; East and West Horsley Parish Councils; Mr G B and Mrs A Paton; Ripley Parish Council; and Wisley Action Group & Ockham Parish Council against Wisley Property Investments Limited (IR1.1). These applications are the subject of separate decision letters. Policy and statutory considerations 10. In reaching his decision, the Secretary of State has had regard to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which requires that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 11. In this case the development plan consists of the saved policies of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (GBLP), a saved policy in the South East Plan 2009 (SEP); and the 2 Surrey Waste Plan 2008 (SWP). The Secretary of State considers that the development plan policies of most relevance to this case are those set out at IR5.3 – 5.7. 12. Other material considerations which the Secretary of State has taken into account include the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and associated planning guidance (‘the Guidance’). 13. In accordance with section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LBCA Act), the Secretary of State has paid special regard to the desirability of preserving those listed buildings potentially affected by the proposals, or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they may possess. 14. In accordance with section 72(1) of the LBCA Act, the Secretary of State has paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Emerging plans 15. The emerging local plan (eLP) (IR5.8-5.11) was submitted for independent examination on 13 December 2017. The Secretary of State considers that relevant policies include A35 and A43a. As it has not yet completed its examination, objections are not yet fully resolved, and its policies are still subject to change, he considers the eLP carries limited weight. 16. The Council designated the Lovelace Neighbourhood Area on 2 July 2015 as a Neighbourhood Plan area (IR5.13). This includes the whole of the appeal site but, as no documents have yet been published, the Secretary of State gives it no weight. Main issues Green Belt 17. The Secretary of State agrees that the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt (IR20.30), and considers that this carries substantial weight. In accordance with paragraph 87 of the Framework, inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 18. For the reasons given at IR20.32 – 20.37, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the scheme would conflict with two of the five purposes of the Green Belt as it would neither assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment nor assist in the regeneration of urban land due to the rural location. He also agrees that the scheme would reduce the openness of this part of the Green Belt (IR20.38). 19. Overall, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the harm to the Green Belt would be very considerable (IR20.38); and that this would be in conflict with the primary expectations of paragraph 79 of the Framework and Policy RE2 of the GBLP. He gives this substantial weight and has gone on to consider whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations and whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development. 20. The Secretary of State notes that eLP draft policy A35 proposes that Wisley Airfield removed from the Green Belt to provide a residential led mixed use development for 3 about 2,000 homes and various elements of infrastructure, including access to and from the A3 (IR5.9-5.11), but he gives that proposal limited weight (see paragraph 14 above). Housing land supply 21. Given that, as the main parties agree, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and the current supply is about 2.36 years (IR20.39), the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that this represents a significant shortfall against the annual requirement set out in the SHMA and the delivery of up to 2,068 homes, 40% of which will be affordable, carries significant weight in favour of the scheme (IR20.83). Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA) 22. For the reasons given at IR20.43 – 20.48, the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that, overall, the proposals would provide a suitable quantity of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) and that, with careful management, it should be of suitable quality. He further agrees with the Inspector that, subject to the proposed conditions and the s.106 Agreement, the development would not have an unacceptable likely significant effect on the SPA. Strategic road network (SRN) 23. The Secretary of State has carefully considered the Inspector’s analysis at IR20.52– 20.58 and agrees with his conclusion (IR20.59) that the proposed development would have a severe impact on the northbound section of the SRN between the Ockham Interchange and J10 of the M25 and this would be harmful to highway safety and contrary to advice in the Framework.