The Pines, London Road, Engleford Green
Planning permission was sought for the erection of four dwellings on the land to the rear The Pines, a substantial detached property along the A30. Runnymede Borough Council refused planning permission on the grounds that the Council was unable to conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the integrity of the Thames Basin Special Protection Area (SPA) and it is bound to refuse permission in accordance with Regulation 48(5) of the Habitats Regulation 1994 of Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC. Permission was also refused because the proposal was considered to represent unacceptable piecemeal backland development and it was considered, by reason of the access arrangements, scale, form, bulk and position of windows to cause detrimental overbearing and overlooking effects and noise and disturbance to adjoining neighbouring properties.
An appeal was lodged against the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission. The appeal was allowed.
The appellant’s case was supported by a detailed planning submission of catchments and drive time assessments of the sites distance from the SPA and alternative open spaces. The Inspector found that although the site fell within the protected 5km catchment area, (where development of houses are to be resisted due to harm on the Chobham Common a Site of Special Scientific Interest) it was more than 5 km drive or walk from the SPA. The Inspector accepted our case that the site was within easy walking distance from a number of alternative public open spaces and that future local residents would use these spaces more readily than Chobham Common. Therefore harm would not be caused to the protected birds on the common. At the time, the Inspectorate was often not prepared to determine SPA appeals favourably and the decision represents an important consideration in the determination of SPA applications and appeals.
The Inspector also concluded that the highway works and introduction of a ‘keep clear’ box as suggested in the submission and committed to in a Unilateral Planning Obligation would ensure that highway safety is retained.
In his appeal decision the Inspector considered that the proposal would have an acceptable affect on the character and appearance of the area. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would not detrimentally affect the outlook or privacy of the adjoining properties and occupiers.
