Appeal 6000565

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice, as opposed to the original application form, as this provides a more accurate reflection of the proposal.

The main issue is whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for residential development having regard to the local development strategy and its accessibility to facilities and services.

The appeal relates to an existing residential annexe within the grounds of a detached dwelling. The appeal site lies amongst a small number of dwellings that form ribbon development along the one side of [site address] .

Despite the presence of adjacent residential development, the site lies in a rural setting and is located some distance outside the settlement boundary for [site address] , as identified in the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan). From a planning policy perspective, it is therefore in the open countryside, as defined under the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policy COM2 sets out the authority’s settlement hierarchy for development. It establishes that development outside the identified boundaries of settlements will only be permitted in specific circumstances, namely where it is appropriate in the countryside as detailed within other specified Local Plan policies or if it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside.

The support text to Policy COM2 is clear that the settlement hierarchy has been established with access to facilities and services and the promotion of sustainability in mind.

The appeal scheme has not been demonstrated to comply with any of the exceptions outlined under Local Plan Policy COM2, whereby, development in the countryside is permissible. It therefore conflicts with the Council’s identified spatial strategy for development.

Notwithstanding the above, the appellant refers to various facilities near the site including recreational, educational, and community uses. While a tea shop and primary school are within walking distance of the site, most facilities lie beyond a reasonable walk, though some are also within moderate cycling distance.

However, the road leading to the appeal site is rural in character, being unlit and without separate footpath provision within the vicinity of the site. The wider surrounding area is also subject to intermittent footpath provision, generally without streetlighting and often limited surveillance.

Given the distances involved and the nature of the surrounding highway network, it is highly likely that most future residents would be deterred from walking or cycling to access facilities and services. This deterrent would be even greater for the elderly, those with young children, or during adverse weather and hours of darkness.

Turning to public transport, on-site observations confirm that the bus service from the nearby stop on [site address] has ceased. The nearest other bus stops are approximately one mile and 1.8 miles away, but I do not have details of the frequency of services. Given these distances and the site’s context, it is highly unlikely that future residents would commonly use public transport.

I also have very limited details of the Unity community bus service that operates in the area, with no information in respect of service frequency or precise drop-off locations. Based on the available information, the service appears to be primarily aimed at individuals who are elderly, infirm, or without private transport, thereby offering an occasional but essential connection. Consequently, even if the location of the appeal site offers access to this service, I am unconvinced that it would provide a practical or reliable means of transport for future occupiers to undertake everyday activities.

Future residents of the appeal proposal are therefore likely to be heavily reliant on the use of private vehicles to access most services and facilities. This would be the least sustainable travel option.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport will vary between urban and rural areas, still, the absence of appropriate infrastructure to support walking, cycling or public transport, means that I do not consider the site to be accessible by sustainable travel modes.

The inclusion of electric vehicle charging points may support low-emission travel, but it does not reduce car dependency or achieve the core policy objective of minimising the need to travel. There is also no robust evidence that the site’s location would consistently result in shorter vehicle trips than other locations, and even if it did, this would not justify the proposal given it remains fundamentally reliant on private vehicles. Likewise, increased opportunities for home working or the delivery of goods do not override the requirement to locate development where suitable sustainable transport options exist.

Although the appeal site may have operated as an independent dwelling for some years, there is no robust evidence to confirm this or to establish its lawful use. While the existing annexe could generate some independent vehicle movements, these are likely to be significantly fewer than those associated with a separate dwelling, partly due to shared journeys, deliveries, and servicing being more easily consolidated within a single household.

Creating a separate planning unit would formalise independent occupation and establish a distinct residential use. Although the building’s physical form would remain unchanged, the formal separation of households would likely generate additional trips including for commuting, education, shopping, social visits, and servicing. These movements would be independent of those associated with the main dwelling and would not be adequately mitigated by the shared location.

Overall, I find the general conditions of the appeal site are such that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would be highly reliant on the private car for most needs.

I therefore do not find the appeal site to be an appropriate location for residential development having regard to the local development strategy or its accessibility to facilities and services.

The Council is preparing a replacement Local Plan, and its Regulation 18 Draft Plan includes a proposed housing allocation on the edge of [name]. Although the draft plan is at an early stage and has not yet been submitted for examination, the allocation site is very closely related to the village and likely to connect directly to existing footways, making its context materially different from the appeal site.

It is likely that through the emerging Local Plan the Council will need to allocate sites in areas currently designated as countryside to meet its future housing needs. However, I have very little background details of the other draft allocation sites for housing that have been put forward in the draft plan. For example, their planning history, level of accessibility by sustainable modes, potential infrastructure delivery, or emerging development/infrastructure proposals nearby.

Compared to the current proposal, the Thruxton appeal site1 was closer to that village and linked by a pavement to an existing footway. [name] offered limited facilities and an infrequent bus service —similar to the present scheme— the quality of routes and bus provision remain unclear, preventing a reliable comparison. Importantly the Thruxton scheme proposed up to 14 affordable homes, and the Inspector judged its benefits outweighed, amongst other matters, the site’s accessibility shortcomings. Therefore, the Thruxton decision is not directly comparable and does not set a precedent for this appeal. 1 Appeal Decision: APP/C1760/W/24/3352327 – [address], Thruxton, Hampshire, [postcode]

The appeal site lies within the zone of influence for the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, which are internationally important for their marine habitats which support overwintering birds. The appeal site is also within the zone of influence for the New Forest SPA, which is part of one of the largest tracts of semi natural vegetation in the country and internationally significant for its breeding and overwintering bird species.

The SPAs are [name] of Nature Conservation Importance and are subject to statutory protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations).

In addition to pressures from recreational activity, the Southampton and [name] has been identified as being in an unfavourable condition due to excessive levels of nutrients, both nitrogen and phosphates, entering and affecting water quality. This has a detrimental effect on the habitats and species of birds to which the designation relates. Meanwhile, evidence also indicates that visitor levels to the New Forest SPA is having negative impacts on its protected habitats and wildlife.

A potential increase in wastewater discharged from the proposed development, in combination with other development, could also lead to a likely significant effect on the special interests of the Solent and [name]. Additionally, the proposed residential development, in-combination with other development, could result in increased recreational disturbance to the features of interest within the New Forest SPA.

The Habitat Regulations require that permission may only be granted after having ascertained that it will not affect the integrity of the relevant sites. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, the proposal would not take place and would not affect the habitat sites. An appropriate assessment is therefore not required in this instance. Furthermore, even if I were to find suitable mitigation would be appropriately secured, including via the securing of credits/provision of a financial contribution towards mitigation strategies, a lack of harm to designated habitat sites would only amount to a neutral factor.

From the evidence before me, the appeal building is being occupied by a private individual contrary to the terms of its planning permission. The appeal site may therefore be liable to enforcement action if the appeal were dismissed. Article 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 19982 provides that everyone has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence.

It is unclear whether the occupant of the building was made aware of the planning restrictions on its use before choosing to reside at [address]. Still, I am sympathetic to the occupier’s situation, but his circumstances may be subject to change, whereas approval of an independent dwellinghouse at the site would likely endure beyond the individual’s personal circumstances.

Dismissing the appeal would potentially interfere with the occupant’s rights to a private and family life and home, under Article 8(1). However, those are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim to promote sustainable development. 2 That gives further effect to the [name] on Human Rights.

The proposal would contribute to housing supply in an area where there is currently a shortage. There would also be socio-economic benefits associated with the occupation of the proposed dwelling. Given the scale and nature of the proposal such benefits would though be modest.

Through being contrary to the Council’s spatial strategy for development, as expressed under Local Plan Policy COM2, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and from the evidence before me, there is a significant shortfall in supply of around only 2.74 years. Paragraph 11d) of the Framework is therefore engaged.

The proposal would align with the aims of the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing and its recognition that small-scale developments can make an important contribution to meeting housing requirements. It may also provide some socio-economic benefits through adding to the mix of dwelling types available in this area. Notwithstanding the extent of housing shortfall, and the fact that the appeal scheme would be of great importance to the potential occupier, the proposal relates to a single dwelling and therefore the benefits would be modest.

An absence of harm in respect of matters including the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of neighbours, and highway safety carry neutral weight in the planning balance.

The location of the proposed dwelling would mean occupiers would be highly reliant on the car to access day to day facilities and services. This would be contrary to the Frameworks effort to promote patterns of growth that limit the need to travel and offer genuine choice of transport modes. This is a factor to which I attribute significant weight. This conflict also contributes to my view that the proposal would not make more effective use of the land. Even taking account of the existing use, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits I outline above, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the provision of the Framework, that justify a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.