Appeal 6000446

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal scheme would impact upon the internationally important habitat sites of the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and Ramsar; the River Avon Valley SAC, SPA, and Ramsar; the Solent and [name], SPA and Ramsar; and the [name], SPA, and Ramsar. One of the reasons for refusal of the original application was the impact of the scheme upon these habitat sites had not been adequately mitigated. To address these matters, during the appeal process the appellant submitted a signed and dated [name] (UU) to provide contributions for avoidance, mitigation and monitoring measures. The matter of the habitat sites will be returned to later.

The appeal site is within the Rockbourne Conservation Area, and [address], [address], and [site address] are grade II listed buildings. As required by Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), special regard has been paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, and to preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The appeal site is within the Cranborne Chase National Landscape (NL). As required by Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, special regard has been paid to seeking to further the statutory purposes of the NL.

During the appeal process the appellant submitted an amended scheme depicting a one-bedroomed home instead of a two bedroomed one, an annotation to the site layout that depicts an area of residential curtilage, and a landscaping scheme (dwg nos 03-03 [name], 03-01 [name], and 03-09 respectively). The appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered at the appeal is what was considered by the Council and interested persons. Having regard to the substantive nature of the proposed amendments that would result in a fundamental change to the number of potential occupiers of the dwelling, these changes have not been accepted for the appeal.

The main issues in this case are: - the effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to its location within the Cranborne Chase National Landscape, to its effect upon the settings of nearby listed buildings, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Rockbourne Conservation Area; - whether the scheme would be in a suitable location for residential development, having regard to national and local policy; - whether future occupiers would experience acceptable living conditions with regard to internal space; and - the effect of the scheme upon protected habitat sites.

The appeal site comprises a stable block, store building and paddock that is to the rear of [site address] . Constructed of timber boarding under felt roofs these two single storey buildings are positioned parallel to the garden boundary of the cottage. There is concrete hardstanding in front of the stables and a gravelled area for parking, access to which is derived from a track that is shared by the occupiers of [address] and [address]. The paddock comprises mown grass and a group of young trees, and it extends up the hillside to the field and public right of way that borders the western site boundary.

The site is within the [name], and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great weight is given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of NLs. A key feature of the landscape near the appeal site is a river and its valley, which in turn has given the village an essentially linear form. The road through the village follows the river, and beyond the houses to either side of the road are gently rising valley sides upon which are fields and paddocks. The dominance of the watercourse in its valley and the expansive presence of fields above the village creates a scenic rural nature to the area, that has a remote, tranquil character and appearance where the landscape has ascendency.

Rockbourne is an attractive village, comprising mostly historic two storey dwellings many of which are constructed of thatched roofs and local walling materials. The vernacular materials and forms of these houses, along with the strong linear nature of the settlement to either side of the river and road are distinguishing features of the village and part of the significance of the conservation area. The historic houses are often within generous gardens, with agricultural land beyond them. The village is concentrated on the lower levels of the valley sides, and to the western side of the river the settlement form comprises a long row of houses, a characteristic that enhances the dominance of the landscape over the village. These features are all part of the unique nature of the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Near to the stables there are a cluster of listed buildings, with most having historic two storey forms and being constructed from local materials. [site address] and [address] are either side of the access track to the appeal site, and they are positioned near to the road in generous gardens. These houses form part of the attractive cohesion of historic homes to either side of the road, and their age, form, materials and position near to the road is all part of their special interest. Their positioning is such that they contribute to the historic cohesion of the village, and this integration is an important part of their settings.

Opposite the appeal site is the listed [address], which is an eighteenth century two storey house. The age of the cottage, its construction from local materials, and its vernacular form, including its sweeping thatched roof and eyebrow dormers, are all part of the special architectural and historic interest of this listed building, as well as making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Like many of the nearby historic homes it is positioned within generous gardens, but unusually it is set apart from the row of houses to the western side of the village and is more closely related to the adjacent agricultural land. This separation is part of its special interest, as well as being part of its setting.

Fences and hedges separate the stables and store from nearby gardens, and although these buildings are described as being existing ancillary accommodation, their discrete positioning well away from [site address] along with their functional equestrian form and the paddock is such that they appear as rural outbuildings in the countryside rather than as being part of the residential uses of the cottage. The stables has its own access and track, and this along with the nature of the buildings and the openness of the associated paddock gives the site a legible rural rather than domestic appearance. This nature contributes to the open rural fringe to the village that forms an important setting to it as well as contributing to the expansive, open landscape of the NL.

The conversion of the buildings into an independent dwelling would significantly and harmfully introduce a home into a rural position that would be to the detriment of the NL and to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Although the size, form, and existing openings of the stables would be retained, the conversion would fundamentally alter the modest, functional appearance of the building. The presence of numerous glazed openings would result in an overtly residential appearance, and five similarly sized large, glazed doors and windows in the front elevation of the building would exaggerate its domestic appearance.

Furthermore, a single storey home with a strong horizontal emphasis and large, regular areas of glazing would have a contemporary appearance that would draw the eye. It would be discordantly intrusive in an area comprising two storey houses, built from local materials with historic, organic forms. Such a strident prominence would detract from the settings of the nearby listed buildings, as well as eroding the historic cohesion of built form that is such an integral part of the character and appearance of the conservation area. The visual contrast the building would make with the nearby houses would be prominently evident given the elevated positioning of the stables upon the valleyside, and when viewed from the public right of way it would form a conspicuous divergence to the historic forms, appearance and positioning of nearby homes. These conflicts would be particularly detrimental to the setting of [address] given that the separation of this cottage from the village would be eroded by the scheme. Rather than being experienced as a dwelling set apart from the village, it would become part of a small cluster of homes high up on the valley side above the village core.

Large and similarly sized repeated areas of glazing on the west facing elevation would be reflective during sunny periods, an impact that would exaggerate the intrusive visibility of the building from long distances away. Although there would be no rooflights and there would be shutters for the windows and doors, it does not follow that the shutters would be used, particularly given the attractive views available to future occupiers. Large areas of glazing would also result in lightspill during hours of darkness, and this conspicuous impact would occur high up above the core of the village thereby making the building disruptively prominent at night as well as eroding the dark skies that are a feature of the NL.

Despite parish council support for the scheme and the modest size of the dwelling, the presence of even a small household would result in the spread of domestic uses, activity and paraphernalia into the countryside. This urbanising proliferation would be particularly harmful given the generous size of the garden and the erosion of the rural openness of this part of the conservation area and the expansive nature of the NL. The scheme would extend the depth of residential development well beyond the linear core of the village, encroaching residential paraphernalia and activity into the countryside, as well as detracting from the unique detached positioning of [address] upon the valleyside.

Whilst nearby houses have large gardens, they are intrinsically linked to historic homes, and these linkages result in a harmonious appearance within the conservation area that is part of its significance. Planting and the retention of the existing landscaping is proposed, but landscaping cannot be relied upon to screen a development for its lifetime. Even with an area described as residential curtilage, the large extent of the site area would remain and would not preclude its future use as a garden. Consequently the appellant’s suggestion of a condition to control the use of part of the site would fail to accord with the requirements of the Framework particularly with regard to precision and enforceability.

The Framework requires that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation, and the more important the asset, the greater the weight. In this case there would be less than substantial harm given the size of the scheme compared to that of the conservation area and to the settings of nearby listed buildings, and these harms would be at the lower end of the category. Nevertheless, they would still be considerable given that the Framework attributes great weight to an asset’s conservation, and they have to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

An additional dwelling would be a public benefit, as would the support of future occupiers for village services. However, given the size of the dwelling these benefits would be modest, and particularly so as there are limited services and facilities in the village. Consequently, the modest public benefits arising from the scheme would not outweigh the considerable harms to the conservation area and to the setting of nearby listed cottages.

For these reasons the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. There would be harm to the special qualities of the NL and to the setting of nearby listed buildings, nor would the scheme preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The suggested conditions would not mitigate these harms, and there would be conflict with the Act and with Policies ENV3, ENV4, STR2, and STR3 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 1: Planning Strategy (2020) (LP), and also with Policies DM1 and DM20 of the New Forest District Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management (2014) (SDM). The scheme would fail to accord with these policies as they require, amongst other things, that development should respect and enhance local distinctiveness, protect and enhance the character, quality and scenic beauty of the NL and not have an unacceptable impact upon its special qualities, including dark skies, and that it should conserve and enhance the historic environment and heritage assets.

Although the Framework requires isolated homes in the countryside to be avoided, the Council has acknowledged that the dwelling would be in a countryside position but would not be isolated. Notwithstanding this, [name] STR1, STR3 and STR4 seek to direct development to accessible locations, and that beyond built-up areas of settlements, the primary objectives are to conserve and enhance the countryside, an objective reiterated in SDM Policy DM20. Rockbourne is defined as a small rural village, and under LP Policy STR4 such villages have no defined built-up area with there being a gradual transition from settlement to countryside.

Given the rural appearance and nature of the appeal site, it is more closely related to the countryside than to the nearby dwellings, and it forms part of the transitional open, rural fringe between the built-up core of the village and the large agricultural fields beyond. The buildings are currently in use for miscellaneous storage, and the scheme would not meet a local need nor provide for a rural worker as required by LP Policy STR4 and SDM Policy DM20. Nor because of the harms to the character and appearance of the area, would it accord with [name] STR1 and STR3 and their requirements to maintain local distinctiveness, scenic and heritage values, and the conservation and enhancement of the countryside.

As regards the certificate of lawfulness for the proposed use of the buildings as a residential annexe (application ref: 23/10365), the certificate did not include building or engineering works that would materially affect the external appearance of the stables. Although the appellant considers the stables could be converted to a residential annexe as a result of internal changes, whether and how this could occur has not been demonstrated. Such concerns are pertinent given the dilapidated nature of both the store and stables, and that no structural survey has been provided to demonstrate that either are capable of conversion without substantial works and / or rebuilding having to take place. Furthermore, the appeal scheme is for the creation of an independent dwelling that would necessitate works involving alterations to the external appearance of the building. Given this, the existing uses and the certificate do not determine the appeal should succeed.

The Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) set out the internal space standards for new dwellings, and for a two bedroomed home the minimum gross internal floor area should be 70sqm. That proposed provides 53sqm and falls substantially short of the national standards, resulting in a cramped level of internal space for future occupiers. However, the Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that the internal space standards can only be applied where there is a relevant plan policy. Although the Council has referred to LP Policy ENV3 it does not contain internal space standards.

Irrespective of the absence of a development plan policy for the application of internal standards, the small size of the dwelling would result in unacceptably cramped living accommodation for four future occupants, particularly so given the contrived internal layout. Future occupiers would need to pass through one of the bedrooms to access the only bathroom, and this internal arrangement would not meet the high standard of design, quality of life, and be convenient to use, as required by LP Policy ENV3.

The New Forest habitat site designations recognise the national and international importance of these habitats that include bogs, marshes, heaths and woodlands that support a variety of rare birds and insects. The Dorset Heathlands host priority habitats and species, including birds, lizards and snakes as well as other typical species of heathlands. The River Avon sites comprise a bio-diverse lowland river system that supports nationally and internationally important species, such as aquatic flora, invertebrates, fish, and birds. The New Forest and [name] are under significant pressure from public access and use, and a net increase in the number of dwellings and occupiers in the area would increase the pressure upon these important sites, as well as impacting upon air pollution. The River Avon is experiencing high levels of nutrients that includes that from waste water from residential development, and this causes eutrophication of the river which in turn impacts upon the species it supports.

Given the location of the appeal site, future occupiers would impact upon these habitat sites thereby having a significant effect upon their integrity as a result of recreational uses, air pollution, and waste water. The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment where there are likely to be significant effects from the proposal, either alone or in combination with other schemes, and this duty falls to occur with the appeal.

The appellant has provided a UU to secure mitigation measures and would accept conditions to ensure the scheme was nutrient neutral. The Council has pointed out that the UU’s mitigation is for a one bedroomed dwelling rather than a two bedroomed one, and that it does not secure the required contributions. The UU is signed and dated, and a site drawing has been provided. However, this drawing depicts a different red lined site area than was submitted for the application and appeal. Furthermore, the original application served notice on other land owners, but the UU has only been signed by the owners of [site address] . In addition to these concerns, the original application was refused for harm to the New Forest sites and to the Dorset heathlands ones, with the Council’s Appropriate Assessment also referring to recreational harm to the Solent and [name], SAC and Ramsar. Although the UU provides for mitigation for the New Forest habitat sites, it omits reference to any of the other habitat sites, nor has any evidence been provided to explain why the impact upon these sites has not been provided for.

Having regard to these matters, it has not been demonstrated that the UU secures mitigation measures to protect the integrity of the habitat sites. The scheme would thereby fail to accord with LP Policy ENV1 as this policy requires, amongst other things, that development will only be permitted where any necessary mitigation, management or monitoring measures are secured in perpetuity as part of the proposal and will be implemented in a timely manner, and that there will not be adverse effects on the integrity of habitat sites. In such circumstances it is not necessary to undertake [name] nor give further consideration to the likely effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed, including the suggested conditions to mitigate nutrient pollution.

The description of development cites highway works, with the Council referring to possible impacts upon the listed [address]. Notwithstanding this, details of these works have not been provided for the appeal and consequently consideration of their impact upon the listed building cannot be undertaken.

Local residents have raised a number of matters, including access and traffic concerns, increased noise and pollution, construction disturbance, loss of privacy, biodiversity issues, property boundaries, and the behaviour of the parish council. Land ownership would be for the relevant parties to resolve, and the behaviour of the parish council is not directly concerned with the planning considerations raised by the appeal. As regards the planning matters, following the findings on the main issues, there is no need to consider them further.

With a five year housing land supply of 1.5 years the Council has an acute shortfall, and the provision of an additional home would be an important benefit of the scheme that would weigh in its favour. The appellant considers the scheme would make an effective use of land, which would accord with requirements of the Framework for the development of windfall sites and the use of under-utilised land. Future occupiers would also be close to village services and facilities and would make a modest contribution to supporting them. There would also be a modest, albeit time-limited economic benefit arising from the construction of the homes.

Weighing against these benefits would be the harm to the character and appearance of the NL and to the significance of designated heritage assets, and also that future residents would experience unacceptable living conditions. These harms, and that mitigation for the habitat sites has not been secured, would be considerable and weigh very heavily against the scheme.

The Framework also requires that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. [name] STR1, STR3, STR4, and DM20 set out the sustainable development hierarchy for the Council’s area, these policies also require development to be sympathetic to local character. [name] STR2, ENV3, ENV4, and SDM Policy DM1 also accord with objectives of the Framework in seeking to conserve and enhance NLs, affording great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Like LP Policy ENV3, the Framework also seeks a high standard of amenity for future occupiers. LP Policy ENV1 accords with the Framework and its requirement of protecting and enhancing biodiversity as the Framework states that where development would result in significant harm to biodiversity, it should be refused. Consequently, the conflict of the scheme with the development plan should be afforded considerable weight.

Whilst a key aim of the Framework is to significantly boost the supply of housing, when read as a whole, the Framework does not suggest this should happen at the expense of other considerations. The adverse impacts in this case amount to cumulative harm that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. In addition, the harms to the NL, to designated heritage assets and to habitat sites provide strong reasons for refusing the development, despite the aforementioned benefits. It follows that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, and the suggested conditions would not overcome this conflict. There are no other considerations, including the requirements of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Thus, for the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.