The proposals by developer J S Bloor for a 76-home development on a 1.93 hectare site was refused by Elmbridge Borough Council in 2011 because it was contrary to local policies on loss of playing fields and development of open land, which have since been replaced.
The Inspector said in his report (21-page / 222KB PDF) that the proposed development was contrary to policies in the Council's Core Strategy because it would not enhance the local character of the area and it would fail to protect and enhance the local landscape character.
He said that the site should be regarded as forming part of Elmbridge's green infrastructure and that the loss of open space and replacement by built form the development would cause was a "key issue".
The development would lead to a "more or less continuous run of built form framing the eastern side of Hurst Lane" which the Inspector said would give the area a "harsher and more enclosed character". "In consequence the expansive, semi-rural village-like character of the area would be lost and the aesthetic qualities of the area would be compromised," he said.
"Despite the acknowledged design qualities of the proposed development the character of Hurst Lane would become more typically suburban, a factor that in my view would be materially harmful to the current sense of place," he added.
The Inspector also said that the site was identified as an outdoor sports facility and that it had not been "clearly" shown that it was surplus to requirements, which meant that it required mitigation of any loss.
He noted that the developer had proposed a mitigation strategy in the form of a unilateral undertaking setting out a range of financial contributions. However, some of those contributions would conflict with community infrastructure levy (CIL) regulations because the infrastructure to be funded by them was also included on the Council's list of infrastructure to be funded by CIL.
The Inspector therefore concluded that the mitigation strategy could not lawfully be secured by the submitted undertaking and said that he did not believe that CIL contributions alone would adequately mitigate the loss of the site.
The Inspector noted that the "robustness" of the Council's housing land supply figures meant that the delivery of market housing only carried limited weight in favour of the proposals. He said that, although the delivery of affordable housing carried significant weight, he did not consider this sufficient to outweigh the open space harm caused by the proposals and the lack of mitigation to the loss of the outdoor sports facility.
