Appeal 6000536

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by North Warnborough Self Build Group against Hart District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate and concise than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result. The application is in outline, with access, layout and scale all to be considered at this stage. As such, only appearance and landscaping are reserved for future application. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

During the appeal, the appellant submitted planning obligations by way of two [name] (UUs), both dated 9 August 2025. [name] seeks to secure the self-build nature of the dwellings and their occupation. The other covenants the owner to provide services to the dwellings, biodiversity enhancements, the burying of electricity lines and the replacement of a transformer. The Council has made comments, and I shall take the UUs into account in my decision.

As part of the appeal, the appellant has provided additional information including a [name] (FVA); an amended plan showing visibility splays at the junction with [site address] ; drainage information, and data regarding [name] and [name] (SBCH) in the District. The Council has commented on this information. I shall therefore determine the appeal on the basis of the amended plans and additional information.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan in respect of the efficient use of land for housing, • whether the proposal should make provision for affordable housing. • whether the proposal would have a suitable mix of housing sizes, • whether adequate details in respect of flooding and drainage have been provided, and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety.

The appeal site consists of land and a pond behind dwellings on [site address] , at the edge of [name] village. Parts of the site are used as allotments, with others being an informal but certified caravan site, and a paddock. The site is allocated for housing development under Policy 2(ii) of the Odiham and North Warnborough Neighbourhood Plan (NP), reviewed April 2025. The policy states that the dwellings on site would number approximately 12, and a sketch plan within the policy shows how this could be achieved.

The supporting text to NP policy 2 makes clear that its housing capacity figures are indicative, and are based on the net developable area and the average housing density of the locality. It makes clear that its capacity figures should be treated with a degree of caution, with the yield being subject to further technical work. Nevertheless, the policy and its supporting text expects housing numbers to closely reflect the capacity identified, to make an efficient use of scarce land on the edge of the settlement.

The proposal seeks to erect four detached dwellings on the site, which would be developed as SBCH units for local families and armed forces members. Paragraph 136 of the Hart Local Plan Strategy and Sites 2032 (HLP), adopted April 2020, gives general support for new SBCH within settlement limits. Paragraph 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) similarly encourages small sites for community-led SBCH.

Even so, the number of units proposed here would be significantly below the number sought by NP policy 2, with an equivalent density of only eight dwellings per hectare. The site is constrained, including by the need to reflect the rural-edge character of the site, heritage assets, and ecology. Nonetheless, NP policy 2 took these factors into account in its capacity calculation, as well as local density.

The site was subject to a dismissed appeal1 for ten dwellings. However, this proposal included development on the northern half of the site, and was described by the Inspector as having little green space, large-scale houses and a dominating, suburban layout that would harm the rural nature of the site and the heritage assets. As such, this decision does not preclude the development of the site 1 PINS reference APP/N1730/W/19/3240725 broadly as anticipated by NP policy 2. It has not been conclusively shown that the constraints would prevent more, smaller units within the southern part of the site, whilst still including countryside views and central green space, as shown in the NP sketch plan.

I understand that during the NP period, [name] has gained an appreciable number of houses not previously planned for, and that Odiham has also benefited from windfall dwellings. Overall targets for NP allocated sites may well be achieved, even if only four units are built at the site. That said, such targets are not a ceiling or a cap, particularly given the housing supply situation in the District as a whole, a matter that I shall consider below.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of the Development Plan in respect of the efficient use of land for housing, conflicting with NP policy 2. It would similarly conflict with HLP policy NBE9 and saved policy GEN1 of the Hart District Local Plan Replacement and [name] (RFA), April 2009, which require proposals to reflect local density.

For the same reasons, the proposal would not accord with the Framework, including paragraphs 124, 129 and 130. These make clear that development must make efficient use of land, and that applications failing to do so should be refused, taking into account other Framework policies. I therefore give this harm and conflict substantial negative weight in the planning balance.

HLP policy H2 requires that 40% of new homes within major developments should consist of affordable housing, and that proposals which appear to artificially restrict the level of development, to avoid making this provision, will be refused. The policy defines major sites as ones where, amongst other things, the area exceeds 0.5 hectares (ha). Framework paragraph 65 states that affordable housing should not be sought for non-major developments, using the same definition of major as HLP policy H2.

The proposed layout focuses the new housing on the southern parts of the site. The application form states that the site area is less than 0.5ha. That said, the appellant does not dispute the calculation of the Council and others that the site area within the application boundary significantly exceeds this amount. It follows that the planning policy requirements for affordable housing are engaged.

The FVA demonstrates that the proposal could not viably contribute to affordable housing, resulting in a deficit. However, this is based on development of the site for only four dwellings. For the reasons already given, this appears to be artificially low. Letters from two [name] (RPs) have been submitted. These confirm that they would be unwilling to develop the site for standalone affordable housing of four units.

Nevertheless, one RP confirmed that they do work on smaller schemes, giving the example of 4 affordable units on a site of 12 houses. Therefore, if the appeal site were developed at a greater density to around its policy-compliant capacity, some affordable housing provision here may well be possible. At land East of [site address] , another NP-allocated site nearby, a willing RP has not been found, but affordable housing provision will be made by a charity instead. As such, the evidence before me does not demonstrate conclusively that affordable housing could not viably be provided on-site.

Examples have been provided of planning applications and pre-application advice where the Council has not required affordable housing, despite the sites exceeding 0.5ha in area. I do not have full details of the Council’s reasoning in these cases, although many involve small-scale development such as replacement dwellings, with perhaps little scope to provide affordable housing. In any case, whilst consistency in decision-making is important, this must be set against the need to properly apply the policies of the Development Plan and the Framework. Consequently, the examples given do not provide a good reason to depart from the policy requirements in respect of this matter.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not make the necessary provision for affordable housing. It would therefore conflict with HLP policy H2 and Framework paragraph 65. I give this conflict substantial negative weight in the

The layout, scale and footprint of the proposed dwellings is fixed as part of the appeal application. The application form confirms that the proposal would be primarily for four-bed or larger units, with only one three-bed property. I have considered the proposal on this basis.

HLP Policy H1 supports development where amongst other things it would provide an appropriate mix of dwelling types and sizes, having regard to the most up-to-date evidence of housing need. The supporting text to the policy cites data from the 2016 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA). This confirms a greater need across the housing market area for two and three bedroomed properties, rather than larger dwellings.

The SHMA data is taken at a strategic level, over three local authority areas. It is indicative, and now somewhat dated. The SBCH Register may well show a greater level of demand for four-bed or larger units from SBCH builders. Framework paragraph 61 seeks to meet identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community. Nevertheless, the site is not allocated for SBCH specifically, but is intended for general housing. Despite development elsewhere, no substantive evidence is before me to suggest that there is no longer a greater need for two and three-bed homes in the area, as indicated by the SHMA data.

Consequently, the proposal would not have a suitable mix of housing sizes, thereby conflicting with HLP policy H1. Framework paragraph 135(e) similarly requires the potential of sites to be optimised, including having an appropriate mix of development. I therefore give this conflict and harm significant negative weight in

The site lies within [name] 1, but some areas of the site are at risk from surface water flooding and others are subject to ground water flooding, such as the proposed location of Plots 1 and 2. HLP policy NBE5 requires that a proposal does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, that it takes opportunities to reduce its causes and impacts, and is safe from flooding in the long term. NP policy 2 requires satisfactory mitigation of any ground and surface water flooding risk on the site, and provision of any necessary upgrades to the existing wastewater system.

The proposal would result in additional built form and hard surfacing at the site and so could potentially increase flood risk within the site and elsewhere. A 2018 Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for seven dwellings at the site has been provided. Supportive comments from the Council’s drainage engineer in respect of an updated 10-unit FRA have been submitted. Nonetheless, these are not for the proposal before me and so do not relate to the current position.

A sustainable drainage and water harvesting system is intended for the site, and a Strategy has been provided at appeal stage. However, this is only illustrative and has little detailed information including whether and how the existing wastewater system would be upgraded. The designs of the dwelling on each plot would depend on the first self-build owner. Nevertheless, layout and scale fall to be considered at this stage. Whilst a technical solution may well be possible, it has not been demonstrated that flood risk can be ameliorated without alterations to the fixed elements. On this basis, the matter cannot be left to a planning condition.

For the reasons given above, adequate details in respect of flooding and drainage have not been provided. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with HLP policy NBE5 and NP policy 2. It would similarly conflict with Framework paragraph 181, which requires demonstration that development would not increase the risks of flooding. As a result, I give this harm significant negative weight in the planning balance.

The site is currently accessed from [site address] , through a yard area which provides parking, including for dwellings locally. The proposal would utilise the existing access. [site address] has a speed limit of 30mph, but the Highway Authority are aware that vehicle speeds along this road are often in excess of the speed limit. At application stage, in the absence of details regarding the sight lines at the entrance, the Highway Authority was concerned that additional traffic generated from the proposal would risk the safety of road users.

At appeal stage, details of visibility splays have been provided. These have been sufficient to convince the Highway Authority that there would be adequate visibility at the entrance, and that additional use of the access would not harm highway safety. Subject to conditions, the Council takes a similar view. I see little reason to take a different position.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to highway safety. Accordingly, it would comply with HLP policy INF3, which requires safe, suitable and convenient access for all potential users. It follows that this matter is neutral in the planning balance. [name] and Matters

The site is within the North Warnborough Conservation Area (NWCA), and adjacent to the Basingstoke Canal Conservation Area. The site also forms part of the setting of adjacent [name] listed buildings at [address], Albion, The Cat, Nevills, [name] and The Swan public house. Relevant to this appeal, their significance is their rural character.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed buildings and their settings, or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Section 72 of the same Act requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The proposal includes the burying of electrical services and the grounding of a pole-mounted transformer, which are incongruous urban features. The Odiham and North Warnborough Conservation Area Appraisal, dated November 2022, advises that the character and appearance of the NWCA would be much improved by the removal or rationalisation of overhead wires, and this is also true of the listed buildings. As such, in accordance with the Act, I give significant positive weight to this benefit to the NWCA and adjacent listed buildings.

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, with less than two years’ worth of supply. On this basis, the Council and the appellant agree that the presumption in favour of sustainable development of Framework paragraph 11 is engaged. Accordingly, it is necessary for me to determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits inherent in providing the additional dwellings to assist the Council in addressing its undersupply.

I have found conflict with HLP policies H1, H2, NBE5 and NBE9, and RFA policy GEN1, which are consistent with the Framework. The recently reviewed NP does not make explicit reference to SBCH, but it does make provision for housing generally, and for the efficient use of land. As such, NP policy 2, with which I have similarly found conflict, is also broadly consistent with the Framework.

Against the harm and conflict that I have found, the proposal would have a benefit of significant weight to the heritage assets. It would also add to the supply of housing. The Council acknowledges that it has not delivered SBCH to the levels required. The appellant has given examples of some 55 appeals where small SBCH developments have attracted substantial or significant positive weight. Nevertheless, the weight attributable to the harms and benefits of a proposal is a matter of planning judgement in each case, and I do not know the full details of the 55 cases.

In this case, only a fairly small number of SBCH houses are proposed, and the development would preclude the greater number of dwellings intended by NP policy

I therefore give only moderate positive weight to the housing supply and SBCH benefits of the proposal. This is despite the shortcomings, recognised by the appellant, of the self-build UU.

Future occupiers of the proposal would have positive social and economic advantages to the area, such as to schools and shops. Construction of the dwellings would have positive economic effects, said to be greater for SBCH developments than others. The proposal would have ecological benefits, such as the provision of a green corridor of trees, and enhancement of the pond. It would provide communal open space, and would retain the existing allotments. The proposal would be built to high environmental and energy standards, and may be built out quickly. That said, due to the relatively small size of the proposal, these benefits carry only limited positive weight.

I understand that the proposal would include guaranteed and secured parking for 12 cars belonging to neighbouring properties, who already use the area adjacent to the entrance for parking. However, this would be primarily a private benefit and arrangement between the parties involved. I therefore give this very little positive weight in the planning balance.

The appellant has expressed concerns regarding a lack of communication from the Council, and that the planning application was decided without discussion with them. Whilst this is a matter for my Costs decision, the Council’s handling of the application does not materially affect my consideration of the planning merits of the proposal.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Given the harms and benefits that I have identified, and the weight I give to them, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.