Report:Planning Adviser S Annual Report 2014/2015

Item No: 7

Date:15th July 2015

Report:Planning Adviser’s Annual Report 2014/2015

Written by:Clive Smith

______

Purpose of Report

To report on the work of the Board’s Planning Adviser in 2014/2015.

Summary

This is a report of your Planning Adviser’s sixth year of appointment. Itsets out the national and emerging local planning policy context affecting the Surrey Hills AONB and the main risks to the future integrity of the AONB. It updates Board Members of the latest local plan positions of constituent Surrey Hills planning authorities. The report discusses emerging planning policy relevant to the Surrey Hills. It also covers the Adviser’s work in responding to local authority consultations on planning applications. This is an opportunity for Members of the Board to comment on any issues arising.

Recommendation

Members are asked to note the report.

______

Background papers: None

Contact details:

Author:Clive Smith

Job titleSurrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser

Contact no:01372 220655

1. Planning Policy

1.1.The main message given in the last two year’s annual reports, that Members should anticipate controversial planning policy documents being published reviewing Green Belt boundaries and planning for growth, has continued to be realised. But following substantial public opposition there are signs these proposals may be tempered. In the run up to the General and Local Elections in May, Government statements and some from constituent Surrey Hills Planning Authorities and local political parties, sought to reassure the public that Green Belts and AONBs would be strongly protected. It remains to be seen whether over the next year or two the perceived reassurances in these statements are adhered to in Government policy and emerging local plans affecting the Surrey Hills. The contexts for these local plans will be against substantial pressures for more housing and economic growth.

1.2.Waverley, Guildford and Mole Valley all decided not to publish the next stages of their local plans before the May elections. Waverley are carrying out further studies and Guildford is reviewing the whole approach to its draft local plan in light of the substantial objections to it, amounting to about 14,000 individual objections. The Board’s Planning Adviser sits on the Guildford Local Forum following an invitation from the Council.

1.3.Mole Valley was about to publish a draft local plan pursuant to its Core Strategy showing how it would meet its Core Strategy development needs that cannot be accommodated within the built up areas. Instead, it has abandoned that approach in favour of starting afresh on work leading to a new local plan with updated local housing need figures.

1.4.The Board should be reasonably confident thatits constituent planning authorities will not allocate within their local plans green field sites within the AONB for significant development. Should that happen, besides any concern raised on behalf of the Board, such proposals would conflict with an overwhelming message from recent local plan consultations that the publicconsider strong protection of the Surrey Hills AONB should be a top priority.Furthermore, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)if a proposal constitutes major development in the AONB, the Council would have to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, that there is no scope for the development need to be met elsewhere outside the designated area and the development would clearly be in the public interest. If they cannot do so and relevant planning objections are submitted, the Council will be in considerable difficulty justifying the proposal before an EIP Inspector.

1.5.During the last year Waverley and Guildford published local plan consultation documents. The Waverley local plan consultation put forward 4 housing scenarios to meet an annual housing provision of 470 dwellings. Public support for the Surrey Hills AONB to be strongly protected from development was by far the clearest message coming from all the questions in the consultation. Significantly, the supportdoes not seem to have been based upon a Nimby response from those living within or adjacent to the AONB, but was from the wider public living in the Borough. The latter seem to value the beauty and the recreational opportunities of the Surrey Hills and do not want to see them spoiled.

1.6.The draft Guildford Local Plan proposed substantial development and economic growth. The Council appeared to be taken aback by so many strongly expressed and well informed objections. The Council has indicated it is reviewing the Plan.

1.7.Comprehensive responses to both local plan consultations were submitted on behalf of the Board. AONB concern does not just centre upon whether an AONB site is allocated in a local plan for development. They are very few. The concern is also that substantial development and economic growth would generate further recreational and other pressures upon the Surrey Hills AONB and greater activity including traffic along unsuitable country lanes. In some quarters there appears to be too much emphasis upon the relatively short term expediency of facilitating development and economic growth without proper consideration of the longer term environmental harm it would cause and the multiplier effect it would have over the years disadvantaging future generations’ enjoyment of the Surrey Hills AONB and their quality of life.This has not been helped by the absence of a strategic planning policy framework that previously existed within the former South East Plan and County Structure Plans to guide policy formulation at the local and county levels.

1.8.The Board’s main message to both Guildford and Waverley was that their ability to meet in their local plans their full, objectively assessed market and affordable housing needs is probably amongst the most limited of any of the planning authorities in the country. Both Boroughs areunusually and severely constrained by national policies in the NPPF that restrict development. The fact that such a large proportion of the Boroughs are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is just one national designation restricting development. Most of the Surrey Hills AONB is also designated as Green Belt. So, in these areas there is a double layer of national protection from inappropriate development. Parts of the Boroughs are also protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives and/or are designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest.

1.9.Parts of other planning authoritiesmay be protected by one or two of these national protection policies butvery few, if any, other planning authorities in the country are as constrained in meeting their development needs as Waverley and Guildford by national policies covering such large proportions of their areas. Furthermore, there are significant inadequacies in the infrastructure of both Boroughs to meet growth and the practical and financial limitations mean that they could not be improved sufficiently. These strong factors should justify the Councils in not having to meet their full development needs. Insteadthe overall public interest is best served bya more balanced approachgiving great weight to these and other relevant planning considerations.

1. Surrey Hills AONB Boundary Review

2.1 Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge all have adopted core strategies that contain policies providing for similar protection to the AGLV as applying to the AONB until Natural England’s Surrey Hills AONB Boundary Review has been carried out. Waverley and Guildford do not yet have such protection policies but their old local plan policies do seek to protect the AGLV from development.

2.2The Landscape Character Assessment carried out by specialist landscape consultants commissioned by Surrey County Council with financial support from Natural England in connection with the AONB Boundary Review identified extensive parts of the AGLV, together with a few areas just beyond, as candidate areas for possible inclusion in the AONB. The consultants considered these areas met Natural England’s latest criteria of “natural beauty” for inclusion in an AONB. At this early stage these candidate areas do not carry any weight in the consideration of development proposals. But because they have been identified by specialists as being suitable for inclusion in the AONB, the lack of progress in the boundary review is creating public uncertainty and difficulties for Waverley and Guildford particularly in preparing their local plans. Similarly, no public consultation has yet taken place to allow the public to comment upon other parts of the AGLV not identified as being AONB candidate areas.

3. Cumulative effect of small developments

3.1 Probably the greatest threat to the integrity of the Surrey Hills AONB is the cumulative effect over the years of many smaller developments such as large replacement dwellings, their further extension, the redevelopment of rural buildings for housing and large house extensions. An inconsistency of approach to these developments exists between some of the constituent planning authorities. For instance, Guildford allows significantly larger replacement houses and house extensions than the other authorities.

3.2 New text in the land use planning section of the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2014-2019 sought to encourage planning authorities to apply extra vigilance over controls of smaller developments affecting the character of the AONB. It highlighted the increasing impact of replacement buildings as an issue and that special care needs to be taken over their siting, volume and design to ensure that their impact on the landscape does not become progressively greater over the years and takes into account any previous building enlargement.

3.3 The AONB policy contained in each local plan is important to control smaller developments The AONB policy in the draft Guildford Local Plan was generally suitable. The Board’s submission suggested further improvements to tighten up and clarify the AONB policy and for a consistent approach to be taken to the AGLV pending the AONB Boundary Review as exists in the Mole Valley, Reigate and Banstead and Tandridge Core Strategies.

.

4. Planning Applications

4.1 The Planning Adviserresponded to 156 planning applications in the financial year 2014/15, up from 125 applications last year that in turn was above those of previous years. Site visits in all cases is not always possible. Where none has been made the advice refers to it being based upon a desktop exercise.

4.2 Liaison with officers in Planning Departments continues to be good. The protocol is for those officers to determine whether to consult the AONB Office. Sometimes, the need for AONB views is only picked up by officers at a late stage in the determination of the application. These cases are few and the reasons for late consultation are understood. AONB advice is normally submitted quickly where this happens so as not to delay the Council’s decision making.

4.3 The only significant development so far permitted within the AONB has been for 135 dwellings at Sturt Lane, Haslemere. The main problem facing Waverley was an absence of a 5 year housing supply and that this lies beyond the Green Belt. Nearly all the Surrey Hills AONB is also designated Green Belt and consequently has not so far been under the same pressure. Further, the scope for housing development elsewhere in the Haslemere area is severely constrained by Green Belt and AONB on all but its southern sides. Waverley therefore found itself with no real alternative earlier this year but to grant permission for this application. The site adjoins the built up area and is sustainably located, for instance, close to the railway station. The exceptional and individual circumstances surrounding this case are unlikely to set an undesirable precedent elsewhere in the Surrey Hills AONB.

4.4Two proposals for completely new houses, not replacements, have been submitted in Waverley and sought to be justified because of their quality or innovative nature of the design. NPPF paragraph 55 provides for such developments in the countryside subject to satisfying four criteria. One of these is that they are sensitive to the defining character of the local area and another that the immediate setting is significantly enhanced. It appears that architect support, including from the South East Regional Design Panel, and some local residentsseemed to persuade the Planning Committee they should prevail over the strong AONB concern about introducing a large new house on a hillside where also its light colour would make it particularly stand out in landscape views. Officers recommended refusal. As the site is in the Green Belt the application has been referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from policy. The other application has still to be determined. The risk is that planning permissions would encourage other owners/developers with sufficient finance to employ architects and other consultants to submit similar proposals in the Surrey Hills AONB largelyincentivised by the substantial financial rewards arising from such permissions.

4.5 Several consultations have related to development proposals located outside the boundaries of the AONB but which may affect its setting. A new policy was introduced into the Surrey Hills Management Plan 2014-2109 to cover this point. However, rarely so far has an AONB concern been considered to be justified. The two main exceptions were related to two solar panel farms south of the AONB near Reigate and Beare Green where concerns were expressed and the applications refused including on AONB grounds.

4.6 Unfortunately for the protected landscape of the Surrey Hills, The Court of Appeal allowed the Cherkley Court, Leatherhead golf course, hotel and spa to go ahead. Construction is progressing. Mole Valley Planning Officers are working with the applicant to mitigate the landscape impact through hedge laying, planting of parkland trees, woodland management, realignment of the access road and the management of non playing surfaces as chalk grassland.

4.7 Following a High Court decision overturning an Inspector’s dismissal of an appeal for exploratory drilling at Bury Hill Wood, Coldharbour, a second public inquiry took place in April. Evidence on behalf of the Board’s case was presented at the inquiry. The new Inspector’s decision is currently awaited.

4.8 In addition to planning application responses there have been:

• 4 pre-application consultations
• Government consultation on Housing and Traveller Sites Plan Consultation
• 2 Mole Valley local plan and neighbourhood plan consultations
• 2 consultations under S.38 of the Commons Act 2006.

4.9 Clive Smith, the Board’s Planning Adviser is unable to attend the Board meeting. If Members have any queries that cannot be answered by the Director, they can be passed to Clive Smith on his return to the office the following week for a response.

Table of planning application by Authority in 2014/2015 (2013/2014 figures in brackets)

Authority

Total

Clive Smith

June 2015