Planning appeal decision
37-41 High Street, HASLEMERE, GU27 2JY
redevelopment of the rear car park to provide 8 residential flats; landscaping; associated car parking, refuse and cycle storage
- Authority
- Waverley Borough Council
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Minor Dwellings
- Inspector
- Mageean A
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- Whether the proposal would represent a satisfactory standard of accommodation for future occupiers, with particular reference to outlook and the provision of amenity space
- The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular reference to privacy
- The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
- Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, with particular reference to its scale, mass and design and also its effect on trees
- The effect of the proposal on the setting of Tudor Cottage, a Grade II listed building
- The effect of the proposed development on the integrity of the Wealden Health Phase ll Special Protection Area (SPA) and on the interest features for which the Devil's Punch Bowl Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Bramshott and Ludshott Commons SSSI have been notified
What decided it
The potential for the proposal to adversely affect the integrity of the Wealden Heaths Phase II Special Protection Area without secured mitigation measures was the overriding consideration that determined the appeal, as paragraph 188 of the Framework confirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where a project would adversely affect the integrity of a habitats site.
Although the proposal would provide much-needed homes in an area without a five-year housing supply and would accord with the spatial strategy in Policy SP2, the overriding concern regarding potential adverse effects on the SPA integrity, combined with failures to provide satisfactory accommodation standards, harm to neighbouring living conditions, and less than substantial harm to heritage assets, meant that the identified public benefits could not outweigh these considerations.
Framework references: 11, 135, 188, 205, 208
Plan policies cited: Policy SP2, Policy DM5, Policy DM27, Policy TD1, Policy DM4, Policy H6, Policy DM21, Policy HA1, Policy DM20, Policy NE1, Policy DM11, Policy H9
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.
®