- Decision
- dismissed, 21 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J Heppell
- Authority
- Waverley (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6006517
- Application reference
- WA/2023/02694
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Building of 9 flats with parking, in lieu of an extant 2002 permission for an office building
- Homes
- 9
- Site context
- inside settlement, conservation area, flood zone 2, flood zone 3, PDL
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 1.28 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- S4, DP3(3), F7(2), HO7
- Development plan policies
- Waverley LPP1 2018 RE3, TD1, NE1, NE2, CC1, CC4, LRC1, Waverley LPP2 2023 DM1, DM4, DM5, DM7, Godalming & Farncombe NP 2019 GOD5
- Main issues
- character and appearance of ASVI; flood risk; SNCI; living conditions
Summary
Nine flats on a partly previously developed riverside site in Godalming, within the settlement but partly in the Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI) and Flood Zones 2/3, in place of an extant office permission from 2002. Dismissed despite a 1.28-year supply. The inspector applied S4 and found the substantial housing benefits "substantially outweighed" because two national policies directing refusal were engaged: DP3(3) (design/context) and F7(2) (increased flood risk elsewhere). Inadequate play space also counted.
Issues and findings
- Transition. "The main parties were afforded the opportunity to comment on the implications of the new Framework" (DL ¶6).
- Fallback. Mansell "real prospect" argued; "the two decades or more which have elapsed since the permission was granted strongly suggest that … if there was a real prospect of it being implemented, it would have been happened by now. I therefore ascribe limited weight to the fallback position" (DL ¶13).
- ASVI / character — DP3: FAIL. The proposal "would significantly urbanise both its setting and that of the river and dominate views of the boat house" (DL ¶17). "The introduction of a large building on a mainly undeveloped site close to the river would harm the setting of the river and the adjacent boat house" (DL ¶23). "Policy DP3(3) states that proposals should be refused if, without clear justification, they conflict with these requirements" (DL ¶47).
- Flood — F7: FAIL. Sequential test accepted by default (DL ¶26); exception test limb 1 passed (DL ¶27); safe access accepted on appellant modelling despite EA (DL ¶28); but compensation only for the difference from the office fallback "would not fulfil the PPG requirement to provide on-site level-for-level compensatory storage … and consequently would increase flood risk elsewhere" (DL ¶29). "Policy F7(2) requires that proposals should be refused in these circumstances" (DL ¶48). LLFA non-objection given limited weight vs EA (DL ¶31).
- Heritage. Council's "moderate degree of less than substantial harm" to the CA, outweighed by housing — "I find no reason to disagree" (DL ¶22); treated as neutral (DL ¶46). 2024 "less than substantial" terminology carried over.
- SNCI / SSSI: PASS (DL ¶35–37).
- Living conditions — HC3: FAIL for play space only (no LAP within 100 m) (DL ¶38, ¶49); outdoor space, sunlight, privacy acceptable on amended plans (DL ¶39–42).
Planning balance
S4: "Although none of the situations listed in the policy apply to the proposal, I am nonetheless required to consider whether the benefits … would be substantially outweighed" (DL ¶44). HO7 substantial weight at 1.28 years (DL ¶45); L2 effective use, social/economic benefits (DL ¶46). "National decision-making Policy DP3 directs refusal … whilst Policy F7 directs refusal where flood risk would be increased elsewhere. I conclude that the benefits of approving development would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects" (DL ¶50).
What made the difference
Two "should be refused" national policies were failed. The flood point turned on an engineering detail: compensatory storage was designed against the office fallback rather than the existing site, and the fallback carried little weight because it had not been built in over 20 years. On design, moving the building closer to the river than the permitted office, within a protected open river corridor, was decisive. Full level-for-level compensation against the existing site, plus a building set back where the office would have been, would probably have tipped the balance given the 1.28-year supply.
Transferable points
- Under S4, failing a national policy that "directs refusal" (DP3(3), F7(2)) is enough to find benefits "substantially outweighed" even with a 1.28-year supply (DL ¶50).
- An old extant permission unbuilt for two decades is a weak fallback: "if there was a real prospect … it would have been happened by now" (DL ¶13).
- Flood compensation must be level-for-level against existing conditions, not against a fallback scheme (DL ¶29).
- LLFA advice is non-statutory and can carry less weight than the EA on fluvial risk (DL ¶31).
- Local open-space designations (ASVI) within settlements feed DP3 context failures (DL ¶¶23, 47).
- Slip in reasoning: the inspector said none of the S4(2) situations applied (DL ¶44) while relying on "should be refused" policies, which is the S4(2)(c) circumstance.
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3 | fail | dominant building close to the River Wey in an Area of Strategic Visual Importance; DP3(3) directs refusal absent clear justification (DL 23, 47, 50) | |
| F7(2) | fail | no level-for-level compensatory flood storage (compensation measured against office fallback) and bank reclamation may lose storage — increases flood risk elsewhere; F7(2) directs refusal (DL 29-31, 48, 50) | |
| F5 | pass | sequential test accepted in absence of Council challenge (applied via PPG) (DL 26) | |
| F6 | fail | exception test part 1 passed (wider sustainability benefits, 1.28-yr supply); part 2 failed (not safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere); safe access accepted despite EA (DL 27-31) | |
| HC3 | fail | no on-site Local Area for Play where none within 100 m (DL 38, 49) | |
| HE6 | harm | Council found "moderate degree of less than substantial harm" to CA outweighed by housing; inspector did not disagree; treated as neutral (DL 22, 46) | |
| N6 | pass | not named; negligible effect on SNCI; no adverse effect on Wey Valley Meadows SSSI (DL 35-37) | |
| HO7 | benefit | substantial | 1.28-yr supply; smaller units meeting identified needs (DL 45) |
| L2(1)(b) | benefit | better use of partly PDL, sustainably located site; folded into overall substantial weight (DL 46, 50) | |
| S4 | fail | no S4(2) circumstance said to apply, yet benefits substantially outweighed given DP3 and F7 refusal directions (DL 43-44, 50) |
Key facts
- Site within settlement boundary; rear part within the Godalming ASVI and a former spur of the River Wey
- Extant (implemented) 2002 permission for an office building on the site; fallback given limited weight after two decades unbuilt
- Site partly Flood Zones 2 and 3; EA objected; LLFA did not (advisory only, limited weight)
- Compensatory storage designed only for difference between office fallback and proposal
- Agreed supply 1.28 years
- Amended plans accepted on appeal applying Holborn Studios tests
- Parties invited to comment on the 2026 Framework
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.