®Planning appeal decision
Land S of Kingfield Road and E of Westfield Avenue, Westfield Avenue Westfield, Woking, SURREY, GU22 9PF
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
- Authority
- Woking Borough Council
- 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.
Framework references: 11, 56, 57, 60, 99, 110, 112, 119, 120, 124, 125, 129, 130, 134, 137, 147, 148
Plan policies cited: CS1, CS5, CS6, CS8, CS10, CS11, CS12, CS15, CS17, CS18, CS19, CS21, CS24, DM2, DM10, DM13, UA42, UA44, GB7, SA1, NRM6
Judgments cited: Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL, 1982, P37]
The main issues and the deciding factor are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.