Mr Charles Collins

Savills
2 Charlotte Place
Southampton
Hampshire
SO14 0TB

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)
(England) Order 2015

Refusal of outline planning permission: 15/P/00012

Date of Decision: 08/04/2016

Proposal: AMENDED DESCRIPTION: Outline planning permission for the phased

development of a new settlement of up to 2,068 dwellings incorporating up to
100 sheltered accommodation units and associated infrastructure including
accesses onto the A3 (Ockham Interchange), Ockham Lane and Old Lane and
revised access to Elm Corner, a primary/secondary school, community
provision, nursery provision, health facility, a local centre (incorporating food &
drink, retail, a visitor centre and offices), employment area, 8 travellers pitches,
sports and recreational facilities (incorporating a floodlit sports pitch and
pavilion). Sustainable Drainage Systems and an area of Suitable Alternative
Natural Greenspace (SANG) incorporating a landform feature and car parking.
The erection of associated utilities infrastructure. The development proposal to
incorporate the demolition/ removal of the runway and VOR Beacon (and any
associated outbuildings). Matter for determination is access (with matters of
scale, appearance, landscaping and layout reserved).
Location: Land At Wisley Airfield, Hatch Lane, Ockham, GU23 6NU
For: Wisley Property Investments Ltd
The above application is hereby refused for the following reason(s):

1. The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the

Green Belt and is harmful by this definition. In addition, the level of
development proposed would have a clear and substantial detrimental impact
on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including
land with the Green Belt. It has not been demonstrated that the benefits of the
proposal amount to very special circumstances such as to clearly outweigh the
harm to the Green Belt and the other harm identified. The development
 therefore fails to comply with the objectives of policy RE2 of the Guildford
Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated (24/09/2007) and
chapter 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The site includes areas within the 0 – 400m and the 400m to 5km zones of the
Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (TBH SPA). In the absence of a
suitable mechanism to secure the mitigation and avoidance measures proposed
the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there will be no likely significant
effect on the Special Protection Area and, in the absence of an appropriate
assessment, is unable to satisfy itself that this proposal, either alone or in
combination with other development, would not have an adverse effect on the
integrity of the TBH SPA and the relevant Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). In this respect, significant concerns remain with regard to the adverse
effect on the integrity of the TBH SPA in that there is likely to be an increase in
dog walking, general recreational use, damage to the habitat and disturbance to
the protected species within the protected areas. As such the development is
contrary to the objectives of policies NE1 and NE4 of the Guildford Borough
Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/07) and conflicts with
saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan 2009. For the same reasons the
development would fail to meet the requirements of Regulation 61 of The
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, as amended, and as
the development does not meet the requirements of Regulation 62 the Local
Planning Authority must refuse to grant planning permission.

3. It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed would not give
rise to a severe adverse impact on the safe and efficient operation of the
strategic road network (A3/M25), nor that it would not give rise to a severe
impact to the efficient operation of the local road network, in particular in Ripley
and the junction of Newark Lane / Rose Lane. As such, the application is
contrary to the objectives of chapter 4 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.

4. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the application fails to deliver the
transport sustainability measures required to enable sustainable travel choices
such as walking, cycling and public transport. Accordingly, the development is
contrary to the policies M4 and M6 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003
(as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/09/2007) and the objectives of chapter 4
of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. In the absence of a completed legal agreement, the development fails to secure

an appropriate provision of affordable housing and therefore fails to deliver a
mixed community or the affordable housing needed in the Borough. The
development therefore fails to meet the objectives of policy H11 of the Guildford
Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated (24/09/2007), the
Planning Contributions SPD and chapter 6 of the National Planning Policy
Framework.
6. It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed would not be
detrimental to the viability and vitality of the existing district and local centres in
the vicinity of the site. According, the development has the potential to be
detrimental to the operation of these centres to the detriment of these existing
business and communities. The proposal is therefore contrary to the objectives
of paragraphs 26 and 27 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. The application proposes the development of a safeguarded waste site for

non-waste uses and it has not been demonstrated that the loss of this waste
site, and the potential for the recycling, storage, transfer, or processing of
waste, are outweighed by other considerations. Accordingly, the application is
contrary to the objectives of policy DC1 of the Surrey Waste Plan 2008 and is
contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy for Waste.

8. Notwithstanding the outline nature of the application, the applicant has indicated
a quantum of development, together with a masterplan, which demonstrates the
likely scale and size of the proposed buildings. The quantum and scale of the
proposed residential development indicates a requirement to introduce
buildings of up to five-storeys in height that would present a dense and urban
form of development. The threestorey terraced dwellings with front parking
shown along Ockham Lane introduce a hard edge to a generally rural area, out
of character with the sporadic and low-density adjacent existing development.
Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the level of development could
be accommodated without causing significant harm to the character of the
surrounding area and as such the development would fail to comply with
policies G1 and G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by
CLG Direction dated (24/09/2007).

9. The indicative masterplan shows a significant quantum of development, much

of which is three-storey, in close proximity to Yarne which is a Grade II Listed
Building. This development is likely to have an adverse impact on the setting
and the significance of this designated heritage asset. Accordingly, it has not
been demonstrated that the development could be accommodated without
giving rise to either significant or less than significant harm to this heritage
assets, or that the public benefits would outweigh this harm. Special regard is
given to the need to preserve heritage assets as required by Section 66 and 72
of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990. The
development would fail to comply with policies HE4 and HE10 of the Guildford
Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/09/2007) and
the objectives of chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. It has not been demonstrated that the development proposed would not give
rise to an unacceptable air quality impact to local receptors including future
residents and protected ecological sites. In particular, it is considered that
further verification should be provided using site specific measurement data
collected and additional information in respect of anticipated vehicle movements
 during the construction phase on the early occupants of the development.
Moreover, it is considered that additional analysis of the impacts of acid
deposition on Thames Basin Heaths SPA and Ockham and Wisley Commons
SSSI should be provided. In the absence of this information it cannot be
demonstrated that the air quality impacts and risks from the development are
acceptable or can be mitigated. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to the
objectives of policy G1(3) and NE1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003
(as saved by CLG Direction dated 24/09/2007).

11. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the application fails to mitigate
the impact of development on education infrastructure and fails to deliver the
additional school places required to meet the educational need arising from the
proposed development. Without such an agreement in place, the proposal
would fail to provide for the educational need associated with the new
development. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the requirements the
adopted Planning Contributions SPD (March 2011) and the objectives of the
National Planning Policy Framework to secure sustainable development.

12. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the application fails to mitigate
the impact of development on policing infrastructure. Without such an
agreement in place, the proposal would fail to provide for cost of additional
police infrastructure needed to manage the new development. The proposal
therefore fails to accord with the requirements the adopted Planning
Contributions SPD (March 2011) and the objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework to secure sustainable development.

13. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the application fails to mitigate
the impact of development on health infrastructure and fails to deliver the
additional health service capacity required to meet the demand arising from the
proposed development. Without such an agreement in place, the proposal
would fail to provide for the health and wellbeing needs of the residents of the
development, and will place additional burdens on existing provision. The
proposal therefore fails to accord with the objectives of the adopted Planning
Contributions SPD (March 2011) and the objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework requirement secure sustainable development.

14. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the application fails to mitigate
the impact of development on library provision and fails to deliver the additional
capacity required to meet the demand arising from the proposed development.
Without such an agreement in place, the proposal would fail to provide for the
library services the future occupants of the development would reasonably
expect to enjoy and will place an additional burden on existing provision. The
proposal therefore fails to accord with the requirements the adopted Planning
Contributions SPD (March 2011) and the objectives of the National Planning
Policy Framework to secure sustainable development.

Informatives:
 1. This decision relates expressly to drawing(s) 1715/P/001 Rev P1, 0934-SK-005
Rev B, 0934-SK-025 Rev E, 1715/P/002 Rev P2, 1715/P/003 Rev P2, 1715/P/004
Rev P2, 1715/P/005 Rev P2, 1715/P/006 Rev P2, 1715/P/007 Rev P2,
1715/P/008 Rev P2 and 1715/P/009 Rev P2 and additional information received
on the 23rd December 2015 and the 1st March 2016.

2. In accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy
Framework, Guildford Borough Council takes a positive and proactive approach
to development proposals focused on looking for solutions. We work with
applicants in a positive and proactive manner by offering a pre-application advice
service, updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing
of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. In this instance the
Council has:

· Regularly met with the applicant to discuss the progress of the application
· Accepted amended and additional information through the application process
· Facilitated and attended meetings with other stakeholders including Surrey
County Council, Highways England and Natural England

While the Council has sought to assist to overcome a number of these issues it
has not been possible to reach a point where the application could be supported.

Please read the Important Notes attached.

Neil Taylor
Director of Development
 Important Notes

The applicant is recommended to retain this decision notice in a safe place or with the title deed of
the property.

Appeals to the Secretary of State

General
If you are aggrieved by the decision of your local planning authority to refuse permission for the
proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then you can appeal to the Secretary of
State under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

You, or an agent acting on your behalf, can appeal if you were the person who made the
application. Appeals are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate, an executive agency of the
Department for Communities and Local Government. Its primary function is to determine appeals
on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Appeals must be made to the Planning Inspectorate within certain time limits and on forms
provided by the Planning Inspectorate. You can find more information on how to appeal at
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-planning-inspectorate. If you do not have internet access you can
contact the Planning Inspectorate at

The Planning Inspectorate

Customer Support Team
Room 3/13
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Bristol
BS1 6PN
Telephone: 0303 444 5000

Outline Planning Application

If you want to appeal against this refusal, then you must do so within 6 months of the date of this
decision notice. Appeals must be made using a form which you can get from the Planning
Inspectorate.

If an enforcement notice is served relating to the same or substantially the same land and
development as in your application and if you want to appeal against the Council’s decision on your
application, then you must do so within 28 days of the date of service of the enforcement notice, or
within 6 months of the date of this notice, whichever period expires earlier

The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but will not normally
be prepared to use this power unless there are special circumstances which excuse the delay in
giving notice of appeal.

The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to the Secretary of State that the
local planning authority could not have granted planning permission for the proposed development
or could not have granted it without the conditions they imposed, having regard to the statutory
requirements, to the provisions of any development order and to any directions given under a
development order.
In practice, the Secretary of State does not refuse to consider appeals solely because the
local planning authority based their decision on a direction given by the Secretary of State.

Purchase Notices
If either the Council or the Secretary of State refuses permission to develop land or grants it
subject to conditions, the owner may claim that they can neither put the land to a reasonably
beneficial use in its existing state nor can they render the land capable of a reasonably beneficial
use by the carrying out of any development which has been or would be permitted. In these
circumstances, the owner may serve a purchase notice on the Borough Council. This notice will
require the Council to purchase their interest in the land in accordance with the provisions of Part
VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).