Town Planner Pro
Search appeal decisions

Planning appeal decision

Dismissed14 September 20213265969

Land S of Kingfield Road and E of Westfield Avenue, Westfield Avenue Westfield, Woking, Surrey, GU22 9PF

Planning appeal 3265969 at Land S of Kingfield Road and E of Westfield Avenue, Westfield Avenue Westfield, Woking, Surrey, GU22 9PF (Woking Borough Council) was dismissed on 14 September 2021 by Inspector Wildsmith D, following an inquiry. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: Appeal A: The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street-scene and the surrounding area.

redevelopment of the site following demolition of all existing buildings and structures to provide replacement stadium with ancillary facilities including flexible retail, hospitality and community spaces, independent retail floorspace (Classes A1/A2/A3), medical centre (Class D1) and vehicle parking, plus residential accommodation comprising 1,048 dwellings (Class C3) within 5 buildings of varying heights of between 3 and 10 storeys (and undercroft and part-basement levels) on the south and west sides of the site, together with provision of new accesses from Westfield Avenue to car parking, associated landscaping and provision of detached residential concierge building

Appeal type
major · Planning Appeal
Procedure
Inquiry
Development
residential · Other Major Developments
Inspector
Wildsmith D

Main issues, as the Inspector framed them

  • Appeal A: The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street-scene and the surrounding area
  • Appeal A: Whether the proposed development would provide an acceptable and appropriate mix of dwelling types, and whether it would create a sustainable and balanced community
  • Appeal A: The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular reference to overbearing impact, loss of privacy and loss of daylight
  • Appeal A: Transport matters and the effect of the proposed development on parking provision and the impact of possible overspill parking
  • Appeal A: Whether the Planning Development Agreement would adequately and satisfactorily address the impacts of the proposed development
  • Appeal B: The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area as a result of the loss of protected trees and woodland
  • Appeal B: Whether the Planning Development Agreement would adequately and satisfactorily address the impacts of the proposed development

What decided it

The harm to character and appearance combined with the failure to provide an appropriate housing mix/sustainable community (Appeal A), and the loss of protected woodland (Appeal B), outweighed the benefits and were not overcome by the planning obligations, so both proposals conflicted with the development plan.

For both appeals the identified benefits (affordable and market housing, design, economic benefits, planning obligations, health club/stadium provision) were outweighed by the harms found (significant harm to character/appearance and substantial harm from failure to secure a sustainable and balanced community mix for Appeal A; moderate harm from loss of protected woodland for Appeal B), so the balance favoured a decision in line with the development plan, i.e. refusal in both cases.

What the Inspector cited

Development plan policies
CS1CS5CS6CS8CS10CS11CS12CS15CS17CS18CS19CS21CS24DM2DM10DM13UA42UA44GB7SA1NRM6
National Planning Policy Framework
Paragraph 11Paragraph 56Paragraph 57Paragraph 60Paragraph 99Paragraph 110Paragraph 112Paragraph 119Paragraph 120Paragraph 124Paragraph 125Paragraph 129Paragraph 130Paragraph 134Paragraph 137Paragraph 147Paragraph 148
Judgments
Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, P37]

How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.

See how each was applied

The decision letter

Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.

With an account

What an account adds to this decision

140 other decided appeals within two kilometres of this site. In the app every dot opens its decision, and its letter wherever one was published, and you can draw your own site to see what has been decided around it.AllowedDismissedSplitThis decision
An appeal decision in the app, with the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out beside the letter
Every letter, there to read. We pick out the main issues, the policies and the judgments cited, so you can work through the letter faster.
Searching the full text of appeal decision letters in the app
Search inside every letter. By words or by meaning, filtered by authority, outcome, appeal type and procedure, with every locatable decision on the map and the Inspector named on each.
Start your free trial

More decisions in Woking Borough Council

The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2021

  1. Dismissed19 October 20266006780
    East House, Chobham Road, Woking, GU21 2TU
  2. Dismissed7 August 20266005542
    6 Beaufort Close, Maybury, Woking, GU22 8DA
  3. Dismissed14 July 20266006124
    155 Albert Drive, Woking, GU215QY
  4. Allowed10 July 20266005819
    2 Sanway Close, Byflet, West Byfleet, KT14 7SP
  5. Dismissed17 April 20266005476
    2 Carters Lane Cottages, Carters Lane, Old Woking, Surrey, GU22 8JQ

The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.

In the app this decision sits on the map beside every appeal around it, with its letter to read and the main issues, policies and judgments cited picked out.