Notice Board

Elysian Residences

23/P/01850 - Hybrid planning application comprising: A full planning application for the demolition and retention of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to provide extra care housing (Use Class C2) and associated ancillary accommodation and amenity space, public realm works, at-grade car parking, plus restoration and upgrade works to Brabouf Manor (ancillary accommodation and amenity space) and the refurbishment of Pound Cottage (Use Class C3); and An outline planning application for a residential led scheme (Use Class C3) and car park, with all matters reserved except access | The University Of Law Brabouf Manor, Portsmouth Road, Guildford, GU3 1HA

Remember, the consultation period does not end on the date stated by Guildford Borough Council. Comments (objections, we expect) can be lodged at anytime until a decision is made.

Submission by the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser on behalf of the Surrey Hills AONB Board

The text below is the submission by Mr Clive Smith, AONB Planning Advisor. He writes in the first person, and writes on behalf of the Surrey Hills AONB Board.

1. Preamble

I attended a pre-application site meeting on 27th October 2023 a week before the application was submitted on 3rd November. I issued a pre-application Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) planning advice report on 31st October. Consequently, this planning application has been unable to take into account the advice I gave. 

It is noted that before AONB planning advice was sought in October, pre-application engagement had already taken place with key local stakeholders and neighbours. Further, the level of development currently proposed is less than in earlier drafts subject to those engagements. Had the AONB planning advice been sought earlier that may have been more useful to Elysian Residences. 

This AONB submission largely draws upon the pre-application report that was issued. 

I understand that, the applicants, Elysian Residences, bought the site in August 2022 before any pre-application planning and other advice had been sought and therefore without having the benefit of any indication as to the level of development that might be permitted. 

On 22 November, AONBs in the country were rebranded as National Landscapes. However, this submission still uses the term AONB as that term is enshrined in planning law and policies.

The application has been well documented. Being in a nationally protected landscape with a Grade 2 listed building it would have been expected the scheme would have been landscape led. That does not appear to have been the case although recognition is given in the application submission to the importance of the AONB. 

At the same time it is recognised the educational buildings were to reflect their functional requirements and their designs were a product of their time. It appears considerable design work has gone into the scheme so far.

2. Consideration of the relevant AONB Planning Policies.

The Government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in both the September and December 2023 versions at paragraph 176 states”: “great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads, and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues……..The scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited….”

Paragraph 177 states for an AONB:

“permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

A) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;

B) The cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and

C) Any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”

Footnote 60  states for “the purposes of paragraphs 176 and 177, whether a proposal constitutes “major development is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting of the proposed development , and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.”  

It has to be recognised that this site is in large part already developed and is not undeveloped as is most of the AONB. It is also not remote but in a relatively sustainable location for housing. The Surrey Hills AONB was designated as early as 1958. The development on the site post dates that designation and probably took place mostly in the 1960s and 1970s and were to meet the educational requirements of a law college. 

I agree that the most suitable form of residential redevelopment of this site is for retirement housing and/or care home due to the nature and landscape quality of the site following removal of the functional educational buildings. There is also the potential for such housing development in extent and designed in such a way as to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the site in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 176 and 177.

In relation to NPPF paragraph 177 I consider this proposal constitutes a major development in an AONB and for the proposals to be subjected to the restrictions in paragraph 177. This is because the increase in building volume and extent of development on the site would be significantly greater than the existing. The external gross floor area of the existing buildings is 7,800 sq.m. This compares to the proposed external gross floor area being 21,572 sq.m. which is a substantial increase. To introduce an increase of as much as 13,772 sq.m. of buildings and of considerable height which are most unusual in an AONB, points to the proposal being a major development in an AONB. 

A site plan showing in different colours the footprint of the existing buildings where there would be no proposed buildings and the footprint of proposed buildings where none currently exist, would have been helpful and could still be produced. 

Some aspects of any qualifying exceptional circumstances needing to be assessed is that the site is already partly developed, there is the setting of a grade 2 listed building needing to be considered, the building designs are better than the existing and much needed high quality retirement housing in a lovely setting would be provided. The latter would release on the open market family type homes. Set against this would be the significant harm to the AONB from an overdevelopment of the site. Further, it should be possible for high quality retirement housing and the other benefits to be achieved without the currently proposed bulk of development. 

With regard to a) in NPPF paragraph 177 it will be for the Planning Authority to consider the need for the proposed type of housing, both the extra care and general housing. The provision of high quality retirement/extra care housing in a lovely setting would be an asset. But the surprising proposed almost negligible provision of affordable housing militates against meeting this test in a). 

The Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan at Policy P4 supports small scale affordable housing within the AONB. In this connection for the Financial Viability Statement to contend that the proposed development is not viable and therefore for only 5 affordable dwellings to be provided, is astonishing with such a large development in area of exceptionally high house prices. If there is strong evidence to support that contention a major contributory factor must have been the unrealistic price the developers paid for the site. It could not have reflected the need to take into account the need for 40% affordable housing. It would appear they overestimated the amount of housing likely to gain permission. That amounts to developer risk and not for a Planning Authority to agree this approach that would also encourage others to do likewise and thereby not achieve much needed affordable housing in the Borough and AONB. Consequently, the lack of affordable housing fails to meet consideration a) in NPPF paragraph 177. 

The requirement of b) in NPPF paragraph 177 it is not an AONB issue. It will be for the Planning Authority to consider whether this specialist type of extra care housing and the affordable housing could be provided elsewhere within the Borough outside the AONB. 

In regard to c) in NPPF paragraph 177 the current proposal fails because as is explained later in this submission the proposals are for an overdevelopment of the site which would have a detrimental effect on the environment and is not capable of being moderated sufficiently. 

For the reasons above I also consider that the current proposal would conflict with Guildford Local Plan 2019 Policy P1 - Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value. The policy repeats much of the above  NPPF AONB planning policies. The wording at paragraph 4.3.6 is similar to that in NPPF paragraph 11 footnote 60 in respect of determining whether the proposal would be a “major development” in an AONB. 

The Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan is a material planning consideration as it had been subject to the statutory procedures and been formally adopted by the constituent Surrey Hills planning authorities, including Guildford BC. Guildford Local Plan Policy P1 states that “development proposals will also be assessed against the provisions the current Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan.”

Management Plan Planning Policy P1 generally repeats NPPF AONB policy. Policy P2 commences: “Development will respect the special landscape character of the locality, giving particular attention to potential impacts on ridge lines, public views and tranquillity …..”

Management Plan Policy P3 states the following:

“Development proposals will be required to be of high quality design, respecting local distinctiveness and complementary in form, setting, and scale with their surroundings, and should take opportunities to enhance their setting.”

On 26th December 2023, the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act became law. Its significance is that it has replaced the provision within the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 at Section 85 that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to or so as to affect, land in and AONB, a relevant authority (including a planning authority) should “have regard to” the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of an AONB. The “have regard to” is changed in the new Act to the stronger wording “must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing etc….” . 

How the courts will interpret the implication and strength of this change in emphasis remains to be seen. However, with such a large scheme in the AONB, if Officers are minded to recommend granting permission it may be prudent for legal advice to be first obtained as to whether the Council as a relevant authority would “seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB” by granting permission. On the face of it, it may not. But other relevant planning considerations may be sufficient to override that legal duty which notably is not just a policy. 

This AONB planning advice now turns to more detailed assessments of the proposals themselves. 

3. Detailed AONB assessment of the proposed three Zones.

The proposals have been divided into 3 zones each of which are assessed in turn. 

Zone 1

Braboeuf Manor is a Grade 2 listed building on which the Borough Council’s Listed Buildings Officer will advise as to the proposals affecting its setting together with 

Conservation Area issues, the future uses for the building and its proposed alterations. But it is also relevant in AONB terms as the building together with its grounds form part of the cultural heritage of the AONB and justification for AONB designation.   

I support English Heritage’s concerns about the setting of the listed building.

Submitted Viewpoint 47 compares the outline of the proposed buildings superimposed upon a photograph of the existing buildings taken from the open space in front of Brabouf Manor. That is helpful, to a degree, but the coloured visualisation submitted by the Guildford Society taken from the same point gives a clearer impression. But both illustrations indicate that the setting of the listed building would be compromised by taller development in the background and a feeling it would be crowded by development, not reflecting its AONB setting.

It is understood that the future uses to which the building will be put still have to be resolved, but that they are likely to include public access. That being so consideration needs to be given to visitors car parking and where it would be satisfactorily located. Parking for the uses the manor would be put is just one aspect of an overall concern as to the adequacy of parking provision for the proposed level of development. Unless the matter is convincingly addressed and the existing proposed provision convincingly demonstrated to be adequate in the future, serious detrimental protected landscape consequences would arise. 

The removal of the unfortunate teaching block adjoining the building, with an improved landscape setting so that it stands alone as a detached building with some upgrading, is a clear benefit over the existing situation. The approach to the listed building and its setting would be significantly improved except for the dominance of development in Zones 1 and 2.  

Further, the height of  Building B largely to replace the teaching block would step down to 2 storeys nearest to the manor. I have no AONB concerns about that part of the scheme nor in itself, to the replacement of the squash court to 2 dwellings.  But care needs to be taken in assessing the impact on trees and its proximity to Sandy Lane and whether the site should be for the seeming shortage of car parking, already mentioned. 

Plot A pavilions have the potential to form an interesting introduction to the scheme being nearest the entrance. I believe the building design is still emerging and would welcome a suitable contemporary design with extensive glazing particularly for the restaurant offering lovely immediate landscape views. The proposal would introduce a substantial building into a part of the site and AONB where none currently exists but replacing in part a tennis court and car parking. 

As the restaurant would be open to the public and there would be a need for staff parking, again I am worried about the adequacy of car parking and subsequent pressure for vehicles to be parked in the open grounds or along a widened driveway that would be harmful to this protected landscape. Any overflow car park should avoid intruding into existing undeveloped land. However, none seems to be available which seems to be a manifestation of excessive development of the site. Parking might have to replace the two proposed houses on the squash court site as previously mentioned. 

The proposals have largely avoided any incursion of development into the main undeveloped part of the site east of the developed part of the site. The ancient woodland is also proposed to be unaffected.  

Re-routing the North Downs Way through the north east corner of the site instead of along Sandy Lane is logical and a benefit of the scheme. Walkers and cyclists would have an attractive view of the grounds of the listed building and a better crossing point at Portsmouth Road.

I welcome the amendments to the massing, form and design of Building D from earlier proposals. In my view, the general design seems to be suitable in this setting, particularly if some external materials features mirrored, in a contemporary way, those of the neighbouring listed building. Proposals for the Walled Garden, the cowshed and the garden cottages would all constitute an enhancement over the existing situation. But it would be the views of the remainder of the development when seen from in front of Brabouf Manor that would damaging.

Zone 2

This part of the scheme has been significantly changed from the original proposals subject of earlier consultation with others. 

I am seriously concerned that the heights, collective bulk and intensive developed urban nature of these buildings (G,H,J and K) would dominate the landscape. I note the interesting rooflines but some of the buildings are proposed to be as high as 5 storeys. Surprisingly, at the highest part of the site where there are no current buildings would be the bulkiest and tallest building (K) which would extend development into an open area. It also comes close to boundary trees with Mount Browne Police headquarters. The spaces between the blocks would be tight and not sufficiently generous. This part of the scheme needs to be seriously rethought and development should not extend up the hill where no buildings currently exist. The upper level should be informally landscaped, probably with woodland trees to provide a treed backdrop.

I understand that the parking for these residents to be over 65 years of age would be in the proposed multi-storey car park and that a valet service would be provided especially as to gain access would entail a walk up the hill for the elderly. I understand that the parking arrangement in the multi-storey car park would likely  be in lines where to gain access to one vehicle may require the movement of others.  I would have expected residents parking to be closer to the apartments probably out of sight in basements. 

The submitted section drawing showing the four blocks stepping up the slope should have superimposed the profile of existing buildings. The change can be expected to be marked.

I consider this part of the scheme needs to be rethought with a significant reduction in building volumes, heights and avoiding development incursion into the currently undeveloped higher ground to the rear.

Zone 3.

This part of the scheme seeks outline permission with a range of between 94 to 104 dwellings with the layout drawings being for 99 dwellings together with decked parking on 4 levels. Part of the justification for introducing buildings into this part is the Local Plan provision to house 112 students.

The justification to replace student car parking with buildings was driven by the absence of any student accommodation on the site which is inconsistent with it having university status. That justification no longer exists within this scheme. Therefore special justification is needed for this open area within the AONB, albeit a car park with some trees, to be developed with a multi-storey carpark and between 94 and 104 market housing of which 5 would be affordable dwellings. Such justification for the housing and multi-storey car park and to the extent proposed in outline, is unclear.

The student accommodation would have involved just a bedroom, ensuite or communal shower rooms and shared kitchen. There would have been considerably less building bulk than the 99 or so 1 and 2 bedroom flats and multi storey car park currently proposed. 

The illustrative drawings showing how the number of dwellings to be sought outline planning permission could be achieved are for 5 storeys which I consider would be excessively tall on this highest part of the site. It has even been suggested that to achieve the proposed number of flats and the height of the proposed illustrated building outline, would result in development of 6 storeys. They would have a dominating impact and are likely to introduce buildings in views above the tree line into the AONB where no such views currently exist. Currently, most views of this hill  within the AONB is almost entirely devoid of buildings.

The multi-storey car park would be on 4 levels and would provide about 198 spaces. Apparently, this would give 0.7 of a space for each of the C2 elderly persons accommodation and 1 space per non elderly C3 dwelling. I believe that the Guildford area has one of the highest car ownership ratios in the country. In my experience most elderly people still have cars in this area. The underestimation of car parking provision is a concern as previously mentioned.

At this stage no design has been given for the multi-storey car park but they are inevitably unattractive features that would be inconsistent with the aims of conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB. 

I am seriously concerned about this part of the scheme from an AONB aspect that would cause serious harm to the AONB and has not been shown to be justified.  

Overall, for all these reasons I consider that the extent, collective bulk and heights of the proposed buildings are excessive and would dominate this nationally protected landscape.  It is noted in this respect that the Design South East Review Panel commented as follows at paragraph 3.9 :’The Panel were not able to fully comment on the visual assessment but from what we were shown, the blocks appear to have a higher level of impact than would be expected in an AONB”.

4. AONB setting.

Two main AONB assessments of these proposals are needed. One relating to the effect of the development on the intrinsic qualities of the AONB site itself and the other on views into the site from surrounding viewpoints. With the Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA ) concentrating on outside views into the development insufficient assessment has been given, in my view, to the impact on the AONB value of the site itself which I have found would be harmful.  

Some of the outside viewpoints covered in the LVIA are from other parts of the AONB and some outside the AONB.  In this latter regard Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan Policy P6 states the following in relation to the setting of the AONB :

“Policy P6- Development that would spoil the setting of the AONB by harming public views into or from the AONB will be resisted.”

I consider that the LVIA underplays the likely visual impact of the development. The wire line visual representations of the proposed buildings in views into the development from other AONB viewpoints and those are not in the AONB, are unhelpful and possibly misleading. They do not show the massing of the buildings. It is noted this matter has been picked up by both the Guildford Society and St.Catherines Village Associations. They have included alternative visualisations with brightly coloured representations of the buildings to relate to the colour coding in the application drawings. Also, the building heights shown are seemingly higher than in the LVIA. But even if they would be less, the visual impact of some of the buildings rising above the tree canopy would spoil the landscape quality of this hilltop. As outside views into this part of the AONB is of a hill largely devoid of any buildings, any sight of buildings would undermine the wider positive visual contribution the site makes to the beauty of the Surrey Hills AONB. 

Probably the greatest impacts would be from The Mount, a relatively short distance to the north and Pewley Down on the other side of the Wey valley. There would also be significant impacts from various points on Guildown and the well used public right of way across the field to the south of The Chantries. There may be others.

Reliance is placed in the submission, including the visual representations, upon existing trees and proposed planting in future years screening or softening the visual impact of the buildings. But the buildings are likely to exceed the life of the trees. Diseases have in recent years been affecting tree cover. Furthermore, some of the trees are outside the application site and any control of the applicant. Landscaping conditions also are restricted to replacing trees only to within the first 5 years. Pressure may come from some occupiers of the flats to top or remove trees so those on the upper levels can enjoy distant landscape views. Consequently it would be dangerous for the Planning Authority to rely upon tree cover in many of the visualisations enduring during the life of the development. 

It is suggested that a drone could be used to take photographs at the position and heights of the higher parts of buildings to show the surrounding areas that would be visible. This would indicate probably more accurately from where the buildings would feature in views into the AONB after taking into account intervening tree and hedgerow cover. Like an LVIA it would only be a snapshot in time.

The Council is understood to have VU City modelling to allow for the 3D visualisations of proposed developments to be assessed in their settings. It would be helpful if the applicant’s agents could make use of the Council’s VU City in any future proposals. 

5. Conclusion.

In conclusion, for the reasons explained above, my AONB planning advice to the Planning Authority is that I consider the proposals would be an overdevelopment of the site by reason of the excessive extent, bulk and height of the buildings that would dominate and spoil this nationally protected landscape contrary to national and local AONB planning policies. The Council is advised that there is serious AONB concern that the proposals fail to recognise sufficiently the need to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Surrey Hills AONB, or National Landscape as it is now termed. The proposals therefore conflict with the Government’s AONB policies in the NPPF, Guildford Local Plan Policy P1 and Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan Policies P1, P2 and P3. 

Nevertheless I consider a retirement homes and affordable housing scheme to be entirely appropriate for the site and some aspects of the scheme are to be welcomed. I suggest that the application either be withdrawn or refused permission for joint discussions to revise the scheme to an acceptable level from an AONB aspect. 

Please note that the images (modified by us in one case for legibility, as indicated - it's the one also reproduced immediately above) contained within our objection below are reproduced from the application submitted by Elysian Residences, and remain the property of the relevant copyright owner.

23/P/01850
The University of Law Brabouf [sic] Manor Portsmouth Road, Guildford, GU3 1HA

Hybrid planning application comprising: A full planning application for the demolition and retention of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to provide extra care housing (Use Class C2) and associated ancillary accommodation and amenity space, public realm works, at-grade car parking, plus restoration and upgrade works to Brabouf Manor (ancillary accommodation and amenity space) and the refurbishment of Pound Cottage (Use Class C3); and An outline planning application for a residential led scheme (Use Class C3) and car park, with all matters reserved except access

The SCVA represents residents of the St Catherine's area. We very strongly object to both the full and outline applications. 

Lack of consultation

There has been a lack of genuine consultation regarding the proposals. There was a large leaflet drop, two or three exhibitions and latterly a tour of the site. But the full scope of the proposals was downplayed with attention focused on the lawn in front of the manor house, and the replacement of the 1960s buildings with more modern ones of a similar scale. The provision of supported living for elderly residents was emphasised.  There was a small-print reference to 4-5 storeys, not the 5 to 6 now proposed, and the images illustrated three storeys. 

We attended the exhibitions, but there was so little real information about the proposal that we saw nothing upon which we could comment. Had the scale now applied for been apparent at that stage, there would have been loud, strong and widespread protest at the despoliation of protected greenbelt, and nationally important landscapes by overdevelopment of Island pockets within. Residents are now genuinely shocked at the overwhelming height and bulk of the proposal which they would expect to be completely precluded by the policies designed to safeguard the greenbelt and protect the landscape. 

It is therefore important that decision-makers recognise that the lack of early-stage public comment is not evidence of support, or even indifference, it is evidence of ignorance caused by slick, partisan PR. The fundamental concern is  how any scheme would sit in the greenbelt and protected landscape, which can only be appreciated by laypeople through illustrative views, and the consultation contained none. In short, the so-called consultation was more an exercise of softening up the community and propagandising one small, unrepresentative element of the scheme. And suddenly the planning application goes in just before Christmas when everybody's attention is diverted.

Interestingly, the consultation document spells Braboeuf correctly. It is therefore disappointing that it was spelt incorrectly without the “e”  in the application documents, with the consequence that anybody searching for the application on the GBC website would find only the EIA screening request. Could it be corrected please?

Neither was there any consultation over the idea to move from student accommodation within the curtilage of a college in the greenbelt/Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL (formerly AONB)), as provided for exceptionally in the local plan, to open market housing in the greenbelt/SHNL, with no particular justification or exceptional circumstances.

Local Character

The St Catherine's area is characterised by conventional 2 storey detached family housing with gardens, typically of brick and tile construction, with occasional larger Victorian or Edwardian villas. Bargate stone features. Most of the houses were individually designed and/or have been substantially modified in recent decades. There is therefore individuality between buildings, which may have unique architectural detailing, yet there is a consistent harmony that is a function of scale and material. The desirability and rarity of this character, are reasons for the conservation area status. Recent developments such as St Catherine's Drive show that increased densification can still respect the established character, being three storey with the top floor set within a tiled roof structure. Recent examples of modern individual houses, for example, the Lighthouse, a Passivhaus and a Huf Haus are of unique design, but respect the established scale.

The street pattern follows the steep slope of the Downs with Upper Guildown Road and Guildown Avenue being at an angle to Guildown Road, and with Beech Lane and Chestnut Avenue being roughly perpendicular and highly curvilinear. This variety means that individual dwellings are dispersed across the hillside, separated by varying distances and tend not to be parallel to one another, except in short sections. The buildings are interspersed with mature, broadleaf and evergreen trees.

The development of a terrace of five townhouses in Rivermount Gardens just outside the conservation area on the corner of old Portsmouth Road was substantially scaled back from the developer’s original proposal and now presents a three storey front elevation that largely matches the existing buildings opposite. The housing estate under development a few hundred yards south of the subject site fronting A3100 received consent for a series of houses with gardens. The low density was required to enable it to be accommodated within the greenbelt. It is as big as developments in our area get, yet it is less than a quarter of the size of the subject proposal. 

Current developments therefore respect the established scale of buildings in the area and we would expect new development on the subject site to respond similarly. The exceptional extent of the proposal adds further challenges of scale which this application does not begin to address.

The Proposal

The PR has focused on Zone 1 adjoining the Manor house. However, 90% of the development is in Zones 2 & 3. We implore you therefore - and in due course the planning committee - to devote at least 90% of your attention to the real proposal, which in its current form would destroy a large area of greenbelt/SHNL. It would adversely affect the experience of the countryside for miles around since it would stick out like a sore thumb in views.

The cause is classic overdevelopment, since it's proposed to treble the existing accommodation in Zones one and two from 7800 m² to 21,575 m² according to the design and access statement. Indeed, nearly all the increase is in Zone 2 making the multiple there even greater. The amount proposed for Zone 3 is not stated, but would be 3-6 times that implied by the local plan policy allocation.

To propose eight parallel rectangular blocks of five and six storey flats is a violent affront to the local character to say nothing of the nationally important landscape or greenbelt setting. The scale is dictated by commercial opportunism. The form dictated by large scale, mechanised engineering construction. The lack of variety is due to a single architect and with no particular insight into the locality or culture of individually distinctive and exceptional designs.

None of these things is necessary and should not be allowed. Smaller scale, sensitively designed buildings could be accommodated unobtrusively. Vast amounts of excavation and removal by lorry would be avoided.

Impact on SHNL

The original law college extension is a good example of an historic abdication of proper planning principles due to special pleading. But the limited height of the buildings, and their setting within a valley ensured that they were unobtrusive and largely invisible and so did not offend views from and within the SHNL. Yet this proposal completely ignores impact in the landscape and would impose alien monolithic structures into the greenbelt and SHNL that would be visible from miles around. See images below.

The site is entirely within an SHNL. AONBs have just been rebranded to emphasise their national importance. The map at https://surreyhills.org/ shows the SHNL extends from Farnham to beyond Reigate. The website serves as a reminder of the roles the protected landscape serves in the public consciousness. We would not wish St Catherine's to be the precedent for gross overdevelopment and sore thumbs across the county.

The SHNL designation means the impact of development on the countryside must be minimised, not just for visual amenity, but also for other aspects, such as the avoidance of noise or light pollution, impact on wildlife or other potential detractors to the conditions justifying SHNL status. The existing use as a law college is relatively low key. Students are typically more mature postgraduates, and the site is fallow for 40% of the year outside term time. So a change of use to residential, even before any buildings are added, would have a material impact, the adverse effects of which need to be minimised.

It strikes us as axiomatic that a significant increase in the amount of development in such a location is contrary to the SHNL designation, and therefore contrary to planning policy. We fail to understand how the developer seriously expects to get away with this proposal. It would need to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the need for wholesale development of flats in this unsustainable location. There are ample consented flats in more sustainable locations within Guildford now. It would be easy to add the services of an on-site nurse and emergency communication to those other schemes if there were real demand from less able persons. In reality, the proposed flats in Zone 2 have very little adaptation for the needs of older persons: all modern flats should, for example, be designed to be accessible by persons in wheelchairs. Marketing the units at over 65s and adding a bit of windowdressing is definitely not an exceptional circumstance.

Crucially, in any development, including one simply replacing the current amount of accommodation, the SHNL status demands exceptionally high standards of design, aimed at integrating the buildings into the landscape in a way that minimises harm. The proposed buildings fail to do this, not just because of the scale, extent and height, but the size, regularity and uniformity of the block plans and the lack of individuality as between different elements of the scheme. It is a poor attempt on just about every level.

The impact of construction processes on a site within the SHNL needs particular consideration. With three distinct Zones, this proposal would extend over several years. The developer states that Zone 3 is likely to be dealt with by a third-party. Zone 2 lends itself to multiple year phasing responding to changing economic circumstances. Zones 2 & 3 could therefore be sold on, and quite possibly subdivided first. Substantial excavation is shown in the proposal, extending in places to double basement, causing extensive vibration, noise, dirt and disturbance and large numbers of heavy vehicle movements. The impact of such a prolonged construction period in the midst of a protected landscape, and adjoining a nationally significant long-distance footpath (the Pilgrims Way), is highly unusual. Consideration as to how this can be managed, and which contractors could demonstrate the necessary capacity and experience is required. We note how planning consent was granted on the Plaza site, half a mile north on the Old Portsmouth Road for an assisted living scheme, which, as soon as planning consent was granted, was flipped to another developer who commenced construction of a scheme of small units aimed at single working persons, only for the contractor to go bust. 

Crucially, the site is surrounded by woodland and much is being made about the ability of the woodland to screen the development. However, the undeveloped areas are steeply sloping and the soil is thin sand. More buildings and huge basements will change the water table and there are likely to be numerous stresses on these trees, in an area that is likely to be significantly impacted by climate change in the next few decades and beyond. We do not believe the protections indicated in the tree report are sufficiently robust. 

We find particularly unacceptable the proposal in the Tree Retentions and Removal plan, to condemn all the trees along the northern side of the car park. The trees on the Sandy Lane embankment are relatively thin. The steep slope gives difficult growing conditions and evidently collapses from time to time. The proposed development would reduce the amount of available sunlight and would impact hydrology. This line of trees bounding the car park must be retained to bolster those on the embankment. There is a strong likelihood that the current proposal would kill the trees on the embankment and rob the scheme of any screening, and this in a protected landscape. This consideration is likely one reason why the local plan allocates a much more limited amount of development than the applicant is seeking. And why the application must be refused.

Given the importance of the trees in any acceptable scheme of development, and the real risks to their long-term health, a significant margin beyond the minimum protection is required to account for the nature of the soil and climate change. The importance of this aspect cannot be overstated given the status of the landscape and the vulnerability of the site peripheries. The council has declared a climate emergency and it needs to interpret its policies in the light of the implications of this.

This is one reason why we believe the application for outline consent on Zone 3 is premature. Far more detail is required before the practicality of building satisfactorily on the car park site can be established. The developer is seeking many times more accommodation than is implied in the local plan allocation, which is already a hostage to fortune. The local planning authority really needs to assess all the relevant facts in detail before giving any further momentum to the prospect of development on this particularly sensitive part of a site in a highly protected location.

Impact on the Conservation Area

Fundamentally the proposed buildings are not of human scale, whereas that is the dominant characteristic of the conservation area. They would be completely out of character with other development in the conservation area that forms the setting in which the site sits. Three times higher and more massive in every direction than typical existing buildings. Two runs of four parallel, identical blocks of flats is more like a Soviet era scheme imposed by central planners who never visited the location.

The site is clearly outside the urban boundary. Urban-type development is therefore inappropriate. Blocks of flats so high they need lifts is the quintessential definition of urban. The type of development proposed here belongs in the town centre, not beyond the urban area.

Impact on Greenbelt

The three Zones are also within nationally designated green belt, long established to preclude any development. Yes, the foundations are to fall within an island exemption. But the design, and in particular the scale of any development on the island has to recognise that its surrounded by greenbelt. This is not a bit of scruffy greenbelt surrounded by heavy industry. This is greenbelt established to prevent the coalescence of Guildford and Godalming thus ensuring their individual character and identities remain. It is there to mark the edge of Guildford. It is part of an extensive area that to be effective needs to appear complete. Put simply, any development on the small island within the greenbelt needs to be unobtrusive. Large scale, framed structures, such as those proposed simply cannot be unobtrusive. They are the antithesis of every construction method that might give rise to the type of building one envisages on hearing the term greenbelt. 

The term implies human scale, traditional and in particular subservient to the landscape. Buildings are acceptable, but they have to be carefully designed and in particular integrated into the landscape.

Buildings on this site would only be permissible if they were hidden in the way the existing buildings within the Zone 2 area are hidden. Those buildings were no doubt restricted in scale at the time in order to be considered acceptable within the greenbelt surroundings. The policy regarding greenbelt has not changed in the interim, and the developer should essentially be restricted to replacing the existing accommodation.

It is a long established and fundamental principle that buildings should not breach the skyline in sensitive locations, such as greenbelt, and yet the proposal does this, when viewed from a number of positions. We are surprised that an application is submitted incorporating such a provocative design. But correcting that alone is insufficient: the design should be scaled down so that occasions when buildings breach the tree line are minimised.

Reasons for Greenbelt designation include maintenance of an open aspect to provide visual amenity and to connect citizens with the natural environment, shorn of human influence. These benefits, and the purpose of the designations would be destroyed by the proposed development due to its excessive scale.

The current greenbelt boundary appears to include the landscaping immediately north of the tarmac carpark, forming the northern perimeter of the site. The Tree Retention and Removals Plan shows that the line of trees there is to be removed. We are uncertain whether the site boundary is correct on the tree survey at this point, but without the greenbelt boundary, it is difficult to be sure.  But it appears to us as though some of the trees bordering the tarmac car park shown for removal are within the greenbelt. Trees may not be essential for greenbelt status, but we believe any development that threatens mature trees on greenbelt that adjoins it is fundamentally unacceptable. We believe all the trees on the northern side of the tarmac are worthy of retention, make a contribution to the greenbelt and SHNL and should be retained and should be given ample root and legal protection. 

The scheme would have a devastating impact on the views from a number of sensitive locations, such as the Shalford footpath (25M) (below), the Hogsback Ridge, Pewley Down. The use of basic wire lines and colours that merge make the impact hard to see. In the above image from Shalford, there are two large buildings, with faint outline, one clearly breaching the skyline, beyond the pink buildings. A series of some seven parallel apartment blocks is shown marching up the hill in something of a 1960s Alpine resort style of architecture that would no longer be contemplated. The monumental scale of the monolithic blocks proposed is apparent in the way they dwarf St Catherine's monument, and how they appear to stretch the width of a large field. Further, the overall scheme - and the buildings within it - are out of scale with the gently rolling landscape - what is distinctly not Alpine - and the trees within that.

The clash with St Catherine's monument is particularly offensive. It is generally accepted that it was not built to be used so much as to dominate its setting as an interesting conversation point on the landscape. With this proposal it would appear, when viewed from Shalford, Pewley Downs, (01aM, below) and elsewhere, dwarfed by the successive blocks of flats. Eight blocks is proposed each higher and wider than anything appearing in the views from these vantage points. And at the very top is a multi-storey car park.

When viewed from Hogs Back (View 35bR below with solid colour added to the wireline for legibility) the development would appear as a long line running across the middle of a forest, which forms the centrepiece of the SHNL at this point. Blocks O-L are identically oriented in stark contrast to the established grain of development in the area. The single gap between N and M appears filled in View 35bR  by the proposed blocks to the south, and so provides no relief. From further east along the Ridgeway footpath block D would also be readily visible. And so someone walking along the ridge, will experience the full impact of this dramatic imposition. The wall of flats being developed to dominate Walnut Tree Close and the station concourse is bad enough, but this scheme would impose a comparable wall of development through the middle of the SHNL, as the developer’s view below illustrates. The white block alone is 75 m wide so the proposed development would cut a swathe, 300 m or more long through the SHNL and greenbelt with a small gap between the green and pink blocks.

The developer’s use of wire lines to depict the Hogs Back view is particularly misleading, since it does not show the solid nature of the walls. But even if it did, with a proposal to remove all the established trees that currently screen the car park site, the impact and damage would be greater than illustrated as more of the lower storeys would be revealed. In such a sensitive location, where the designations imply that there should be no development, and where the public is entitled to expect the planning authority to safeguard the natural appearance that is the spirit of the designation, any development must be designed - by virtue of its height, scale, and mass - to be entirely unobtrusive, understated, and muted in tone. What is proposed is the precise opposite. Although the tone of colour palette in Zone 2 is reasonable, there are no constraints to Zone 3 which could be any style or colour.  The development should be largely invisible as the original law college and the adjacent Surrey police HQ recognise. This unobtrusive, indeed invisible, style of development is in fact the established character of large scale development in the area and is a precedent that the planning authority should on reflection demand here. 

Mass, Height and Design

Blocks G-K are all of identical design and much of the detail which gives buildings character has not been fully considered at this stage. The attractive features are likely to be value engineered away later.

The roof of block G starts at about AOD 78 m and the top of block K is about 102 m AOD, giving the appearance of a 24 metre wall of roofing when viewed from the west from Pewley Down for example (View 01aM) below or Shalford above. Again, compare the relative size of the proposal with St Catherine's monument. Please study the image carefully to pick out the very light blocks of flats to the rear of the left group, as well as the light ones in front and behind the pink ones on the right. 

Comprehensively redeveloping a site of this scale, surrounded by extensive greenbelt, and SHNL demands an exceptional approach with the blocks carefully designed individually to avoid homogeneity, but nevertheless to be in harmony; perhaps to be slightly differentially orientated and to have variation in materials. Here the rhythm, materials and end elevations are identical and monotonous.

The footpath access to these blocks is up a series of steps as each block rises up the hillside, making them unsuitable for aged residents. The developer responds that shuttle services could be provided, but we are not persuaded that this type of approach is sustainable long-term. It would give high service charges, whether paid on time, or rolled up and deferred. Senior people tend to jealously guard their independence for as long as possible, and would be reluctant to have to hang around waiting for a lift. It is a material disadvantage which points to the fundamental unsuitability of the site for C2 use on a large scale.

The blocks of tall, regularly spaced, uniformly designed units gives an institutional feel; or maybe just reflects a lack of imagination and the focus on cost. It contradicts the stated aspiration of a luxury scheme. This is fundamentally unimaginative architecture which is being imposed on a landscape of the highest order, and which can be observed from the north west to south east for miles around.

Blocks, L-O, are worse since they are built on a ridge forming an almost continuous east-west line viewable from the Hogsback ridge, itself an area of outstanding natural beauty and an Anglo-Saxon route. 

Outline Application Zone 3

It is completely inappropriate to consider the planning application constrained purely by parameter plans, which permit material flexibility, and in this case elastic walls that can get a metre bigger, in such a sensitive location. What is the purpose of greenbelt or SHNL designations if they do not trigger more exacting standards, reflective of the sensitivity? This application for an outline consent for a series of big boxes, with no consideration of how they will end up looking, or the practicalities of construction, is premature. 

The developers have indicated they are likely to sell this plot on. The lack of detail risks someone overpaying, and whilst it's not your concern to look after their finances it is fundamentally your role to indicate the constraints, permit informed decision-making and an orderly land market. A consent on the basis of simple parameter plans risks a big future battle when the next developer argues it has to renegotiate the terms of the consent. It is a recipe for endless site flipping or stalled construction projects in the vein of the Plaza scheme referred to above. This must be avoided.

The amount of accommodation applied for on the car park is vastly excessive.

The car park was included in the local plan (now policy A33) and allocated for 110 student units. In making such an allocation for building in what is, in practical terms, the greenbelt, although technically it's in an island excluded from the greenbelt, exceptional circumstances would by definition have been necessary; for example that this enabled the continuing viability of the college. Those exceptional circumstances therefore no longer exist, and we question the legitimacy of unilaterally broadening the use from sui generis to residential. The principle should have been consulted on as a modification of the local plan.

Yet, even more worrying is the apparent willingness to contemplate buildings, two, three or maybe several times that envisaged by the local plan allocation. Surely the planning authority needs to establish this multiple and report it to the planning committee in order that the acceptability or otherwise of the proposal can be judged.

Student accommodation at the time the local plan was prepared was straightforward, based on shared communal kitchens in clusters typically of six, possibly with shared bathrooms. The individual rooms were typically 7 or 8 m² net with space for a bed, a desk and some storage. Taking 8 m², adding 50% for communal space and a further 15% to gross up gives 1518 m². Alternatively, taking 7 m², adding 100%, and then 15% gives 1717 m². This is the order of magnitude contemplated by the local plan. Modern ensuite units might be 10-12 m², but with fewer communal facilities, giving a comparable total.

Block N-O scales roughly 76 m by say 22 m average giving an area of 1672 m². That is a comparable amount of accommodation in a single level! The parameter plans indicate a height of 19.75 m, implying six storey buildings. This would give six times as much accommodation as envisaged in the local plan without including block M.

Consequently, the scale of the development sought is many times that contemplated by the local plan. Others estimate the multiple closer to 3, but whatever it is, it is fundamentally different to that envisaged in the local plan. And the range of plausible estimates serves to emphasise the unsuitability of parameter plans in such a sensitive location.

Then in a final twist, the massive development is further substantially increased by the large multi-storey car park extending to 96 m AOD. This element should be included in the volume derived from the local plan allocation on this site, not added to it. There was never any suggestion that there could be a multi-storey car park on this elevated and sensitive site. Multi-storey car parks are almost universally panned as being ugly intrusive light polluting structures. Why is the planning authority entertaining the possibility of establishing one on the top of the ridge in a greenbelt SHNL overlooking the Pilgrims Way? And a conservation area. This is further confirmation of the highly urbanised form of development being proposed and serves to underline its fundamental unsuitability to this protected historic location. The range of cladding solutions indicated in the application is so broad as to be meaningless. This is not the type of development that can be controlled adequately by an outline consent since policy assumes no development.

This massive scale, explains why the proposal looks so out of place in views from the Hogsback (35bR).

Any development contemplated on this site, in an area with the highest level of protections, needs exceptionally well-considered screening. The developers proposal is truly shocking. Firstly, they propose removing all the trees along the northern boundary of the Zone 3 site that would be there for screening purposes. There are few trees on the embankment above Sandy Lane but they do not appear high or substantial enough to provide an effective screen. And secondly, they would remove all the trees that have been carefully planted perpendicularly to the boundary across the car park to break it up particularly when viewed obliquely. Retaining a high proportion of these is essential to soften any buildings constructed on the car park as the photograph below taken from the applicant’s design and access statement shows. This would be possible in the development of 110 student units. That is why a considered low density scheme that fits around the trees is appropriate here, and why the proposal is outrageous overdevelopment.

No details of the Sandy Lane embankment part of the site are provided on the tree survey. Why? They should be. Is the boundary wrong and the embankment outside their ownership? The argument that neighbouring sites can provide screening is unacceptable in principle: it is well established that any development should provide for its own adequate screening. Furthermore, in this instance, it is ineffective because the neighbour’s screening is inadequate. During the winter months when there is no leaf cover the cars are easy to see from Beech Lane for example. To envisage 5 or 6 storeys built above this level, but with none of the screening is outrageous, and would do untold harm to views southwards from the Hogsback. We do not believe the photomontage 35bR allows for the removal of much of the screening and does not allow for the fact the lower parts of the building will be visible through the trees and therefore appear even more bulky than in the photo.

Zone 3 needs to be fundamentally redesigned and dramatically reduced in size and height to low rise buildings, perhaps up to 2 1/2 stories (i.e. three stories, incorporating dormer windows in the top floor) scattered across the site, enabling the majority of the trees within the car park to be retained along with those that border it. That gives the potential to create an acceptable design, although the acceptability of the use is a separate matter.

It is worth noting that the white stucco, tile-roofed house visible in photograph 35bR is quite prominent when one stands where the photograph was taken from. An estate of this style of dwelling strung along the site would be unacceptably intrusive given the greenbelt and SHNL status. To be acceptable, even a traditional style development needs to be fragmented and pepper-potted amongst the trees in an unobtrusive, informal manner, to reflect the character of the conservation area in which the site sits. The proposed development is so far from what we residents expected, we are surprised it has progressed this far. We would have thought something of this scale, with the impact indicated in the views, would clearly be in breach of any one of the greenbelt, SHNL or conservation area policies.

Straightforward residential use on this site is a marked departure from the local plan that needs full justification. The site is truly outside the settlement boundary with poor connectivity, given the narrow pavements in the village section of Old Portsmouth Road.

If for the sake of argument market residential is accepted, then the design has to be of exceptional quality since it is de facto in the greenbelt and SHNL. All the reasons that justify exceptional quality in these areas apply equally to an anachronistic windfall island site such as the former car park.

The photograph below (Visual Representation 28M) indicates the intention to build right up close to the public footpath that runs above Sandy Lane. The grey wire line does not properly indicate that there would be a five or six storey building up close to the footpath. All the trees to the right of the path are shown to be removed, along with the bent tree on the left. View 28R is even less informative with just a vertical white line. Proper visual representations are required.

ne can understand a developer being reticent to admit this level of destruction in its consultation, but the cynical suggestion of improving the setting of the Manorhouse is in such contrast to what is now being revealed in the application that we believe it should be dismissed to allow an honest consultation followed by a revised and considered application that might be treated seriously.

To reiterate, the site is so sensitive, ordinary parameter plans are insufficiently precise to govern future development here. Consequently, we believe this phase of the development should be refused as being premature and that only full, rather than outline, consent affords the necessary, detailed control that the site demands.

Extra Care Living (Use Class C2)

We believe there is a real risk that there will be insufficient demand for a large amount of extra care living in Blocks G-K. We note block K is 15 m above block G and access is via a series of flights of stairs which we regard as a serious impediment to the infirm. We are not persuaded that the shuttle service is a satisfactory solution that would endure in perpetuity. The amount of excavation and the substantial embedded carbon mean this development would have a serious environmental impact and to be justified would need to endure pretty much in perpetuity.

It is therefore important to consider the implications of the potential need to adapt as well as the impacts of the proposal on visual and other amenities.

In our opinion this application smacks of short term commercial opportunism. It could be more about enhancing the value of an asset, than creating a viable community. It is entirely legitimate for the planning authority to focus on the long-term usability of a development proposal, and it is essential that on behalf of the community the authority controls excess and ensures the flexibility to adapt is built in.

Thus in the shorter or longer term, there could be pressure to broaden the consent to conventional residential. However, we do not believe this site suits this use in significant quantities, since the density is excessive and it is in an isolated location. For children, there are no play areas, no schools other than an infant school within walking distance, and that involves crossing and re-crossing a busy road several times due to the lack of continuous pavements. There is no shop. Conflict with the protected landscape would be too much, threatening the survival of flora and fauna and in particular essential tree screening.

Historic England

We are pleased to endorse Historic England’s generally perceptive observations. We are pleased they recognise the village atmosphere of St Catherine's, born of its original rural hamlet nature, and the significance of the topography and woodland on the character of the area, and indeed on the well-being of its residents.

We too, would welcome the removal of the poorly considered extensions to the manor, the product of lax planning, and cheap prefabricated construction. But any benefit of that is minor, hidden away and much less significant than the openness of the countryside, which is threatened by this development proposal. We want to be sure that any new development is of a standard that meets the challenges and opportunities of the location, which the current proposal generally falls a long way short of as HE recognises.

We agree, six storey blocks are entirely alien and completely out of character with the area. We are pleased that HE is concerned about both near and distant views and to ensure that the Manor and St Catherine’s Monument are not overshadowed by a backdrop of high-rise blocks of flats.

We note the important conclusion that the current proposals do not minimise harm, which applicants are obliged to do in this type of sensitive setting. Minimise means "reduce something undesirable to the smallest possible amount or degree.” It does not mean lessen, scaleback, reduce. It requires exertion, the making of real effort, striving. Indeed, maximising the effort in order to minimise the harm. The developer really has a long way to go to clear this hurdle. Rather, this developer has maximised its obfuscation to maximise its profit.

English Heritage has concerns. We consider the proposal truly frightening in its excessive scale and alien character that would destroy a protected landscape. The destruction would be visible from miles around, and therefore detract from the broader protected landscape in which it sits, and of which it forms apart. 

There is a reference to weighing public benefits. We see none. Housing is to be provided since it is Elysian’s business. It makes a profit and keeps their staff in gainful employment. A substantial amount of social housing available to needy, aged persons at cheap rents along the lines of an alms house might be considered a public benefit. Many of our residents are retired. We do not consider this a good site for an assisted living scheme. There is real concern at the level of service charge that would be necessary to overcome the fundamental unsuitability of the site due to its isolation and steep nature, requiring shuttle buses and valet parking for example. The wrong thing in the wrong place can never be a public benefit.

Conclusion

This is a particularly bad proposal for eight tall apartment blocks and other lower buildings adjoining the Manor house. The eight blocks are of a scale suitable for a site near a London underground station, not in the middle of the greenbelt and SHNL and in a conservation area. We feel the scheme has been misrepresented in the public consultation, is entirely unjustified, contrary to the local plan, contrary to national planning policy. 

We doubt there is anything like the effective demand for the quantity of C2 dwellings proposed in the four rear blocks of Zone 2, and that this is nothing more than an attempt to secure conventional residential flats in a fundamentally unsuitable location.

Yet again, the question of why VuCity is not being comprehensively deployed to illustrate the proposal of which the developers must be proud arises. We residents are more than just an annoyance to be manipulated by avaricious developers. This is the biggest development proposal ever in the St Catherine's area.  We ask the planning authority to promote informed decision-making by insisting on the use of the best tools available. We trust the application will be so firmly rejected as to become the last attempt to infiltrate a forest of blocks of flats into the SHNL.

We trust you appreciate the sense of outrage amongst local residents now the scale of this proposal has been revealed. We are genuinely shocked that someone could propose something so intrusive and damaging to protected landscapes visible for miles around. Notions of benefit, harm and balance, have ultimately to be rooted in the standards, judgements and perceptions of the local community. 

Assertions on behalf of the developer that the tree removal is minimal, or the trees concerned are insignificant; that buildings, many times larger than anything else in the area, sticking up in the middle of the countryside, add to the landscape are literally incredible, and ought to serve as a warning to treat with a high degree of scepticism, any further arguments advanced on its behalf. 

We trust our comments together with those of Historic England, give you the confidence to roundly reject both detailed and outline applications and to demand a full application in relation to the car park site in due course since we do not believe an outline will sufficiently constrain a controversial development in an ultra sensitive location granted the maximum degree of protection.