A government inspector has dismissed an appeal from developers Redwood South West Ltd to build 110 homes off Midhurst Road at Scotland Park, Haslemere.
Tom Bristow BA MSc MRTPI AssocRICS, appointed by the Secretary of State, dismissed APP/R3650/W/23/3327643 to the delight of a thousand or more Haslemere objectors who once feared thewouldn’t’t get to have their say.
Controversy surrounded the planning inquiry when” Your Waverley failed to notify a long list of objectors that a public session was being held on the first day of the inquiry into Red Court Phase Two. This prompted a big Waverley Mea Culpa, and the Inspector was forced to add another session to allow everyone to have their say.
Waverley Planners refused the scheme, claiming it could seriously harm the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Apologies all round for the Red Court fiasco that hit Haslemere.
The Inspector commented:
The appeal decision letter above includes a full transcript of the inspector’s comments.
On 9 January 2024, WBC believed that individual notification of the inquiry had been appropriately served. However, at my prompting, in light of extensive correspondence I received throughout the inquiry, on 15 January 2024, WBC identified that only around 70 people were individually notified of the inquiry. “A large number’ of those who made representations at appeal had not been individually notified.”
At the inquiry my attention was drawn to Waverley Web’s website.
That website referenced how many appeals in Waverley ‘have the same outcome’, and carried the by-line ‘Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practise to deceive’. There is clearly a broader narrative here, setting aside that WBC decided to pursue only part of one of the original reasons for refusal at appeal.
To address that error, on 16 January 2024, I arranged for a virtual inquiry session to be held on 23 January as an opportunity to hear from any interested party. That session was attended by around 246 individuals (the number of attendees varying throughout). I heard from several individuals at that session. On 17 January, I also made provisions for any additional statements to be made within 14 days, i.e., by 31 January. In that context, 129 statements were received. Through the foregoing, I sought to ensure fair opportunity for any relevant views to be expressed. Some welcomed those opportunities. Some welcomed those opportunities conditionally. Others raised concerns regarding the differential process, in-person cross-examination of witnesses compared to a virtual discussion involving third parties.
In short, circumstances that occurred before this inquiry appear to have left a legacy in people’s minds. HSRA were the Rule’6′ party at the Scotland Park inquiry. In respect of this inquiry, their website carried the line’ ‘How much rate-payers money is this [appeal] wasting when one day to just say ‘no’?’ At that juncture, it also contained the phrase’ ‘profit is put over everything logical, ethical and sensible’. Numerous third-party representations refer to the morality of the development proposed’s position.
5-year housing land supply.
Waverley planning officers demonstrated a forward supply of 2,936 homes, equivalent to 4 12 years’ supply. The appellant claimed that only a demonstrable forward supply of 2,228 dwellings, equivalent to 3. 12 years’ supply, is in evidence.
Dunsfold Park’s allocation of 2,600 homes in the Waverley Local Plan was discussed.
Dunsfold Park was allocated via LPP1 policy SS7 for 2,600 dwellings, and hybrid permission was granted in March 2018.
The Inspector ruled out Dunsfold Garden Village, saying`
I acknowledge some recent remediation and infrastructure provision on site, and that certain temporary uses will cease in April 2024. I note that there have also been discussions between WBC and the site promoter regarding the delivery of 374 dwellings over the next five years. However, little substantively has changed relative to the Inspector’s consideration of that site at an appeal at Waverley Lane, Farnham, in respect of clear evidence that housing completions will begin on site within five years (for example, the submission of reserved matters applications or the site being within the control of a developer).
In this respect, 374 dwellings should not be accounted for in the 5YHLS calculation.
Whilst there is no 5YHLS, inherent in my reasoning above is that there is nonetheless a ‘clear reason’ for refusing permission with reference to NPPF paragraph 11.d)i. Having taken account of the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Former WBC Councillor Brian Edmonds commented today:
At last, someone has taken the trouble to correctly apply NPPF taken as a whole.
11 d) “where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.’
At last someone has taken the trouble to correctly apply NPPF taken as a whole.
11 d) “where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.’