Appeal 6000567

The appeal is dismissed.

A plan reference SCP/25083/01 ‘Proposed Site Access Arrangements’ was submitted with the appeal. The position of the access shown on that plan differs from that on the ‘Proposed Site Plan’ CEH _PL _100 revision P1. As that was the plan on which the Council based its decision and has not been amended, I have determined the appeal on the basis of that plan rather than plan SCP/25083/01.

An ‘[name] 1 Ecological Assessment’ August 2025 (the Ecological Assessment) was submitted with the appeal. The Council has had the opportunity to consider that assessment and has made comments on it. I have therefore taken it into account in my decision.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the proposed changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposed dwelling would be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with new housing in the countryside including the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings; • Whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building known as Wollams; • The effect of the proposal on highway safety; • The effect of the proposal on biodiversity; • The effect of the development on trees proposed to be retained; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling [address] with regard to noise.

The site lies outside any settlement with a clearly defined settlement boundary. In accordance with Winchester District Local Plan Part 1 – [name] 2013 (LPP1) policy MTRA4 it therefore falls within the countryside for the purposes of development plan policy. The proposal does not fall within any of the categories of development in the countryside permitted by policy MTRA4.

The proposed dwelling would be sited on an area of managed grassland enclosed on its north western and north eastern sides by a belt of trees and dense undergrowth. A mature hedge separates the site from [site address] , the B3035, and the existing two storey dwelling, [address], located immediately to the south west of the site.

Whilst there is a denser pattern of development to the south west of the site around the church, including a new small residential development, and around [address] to the south east, the north western side of [site address] around the site exhibits a looser, more sporadic, scattered pattern of development. This is characterised by a small number of detached dwellings standing in spacious grounds. The site itself in conjunction with its wooded surroundings and the open fields on the opposite side of [site address] contribute to the rural character of the road.

The Curdridge and Curbridge Village Design Statement describes the character of the village as dispersed. Open spaces and housing, often screened by hedges and set well back from the road are identified as being the main features which help create the essential rural character of the village. The Council’s Landscape Character Assessment April 2022 (LCA) describes Curdridge as an example of a settlement which has generally retained its scattered, low density structure relating well to the surrounding small-scale fields. My own observations concur with these descriptions.

The spacious nature of the development on the north western side of [site address] which the site contributes to, together with the visual and physical effect of the belt of trees which lie between the existing dwellings either side of the site, means that the part of [site address] in which the site lies does not have the character or appearance of a continuously built up road frontage. The site forms part of a substantial, verdant gap separating the existing dwellings and which contributes to the rural character of the village and its distinctiveness.

The proposed dwelling would be a substantial two storey building which would reduce much of the existing open space between [address] and the tree belt to the north east. [address] and the trees along the northern and eastern sides of the site would limit views of the proposed dwelling, it would be clearly visible from the road and footway passing the site. As a consequence it would significantly erode the spacious, verdant character of the north western side of [site address] .

The erosion of the green space fronting the road, coupled with the substantial scale and modern design of the proposed dwelling, would have a harmful suburbanising effect on the countryside. This is an effect which the “[name]” in the LCA for the Shedfield Heathlands Landscape Character Area, where the site is located, seek to resist. It would cause harm to the spacious, rural character of this part of the village and its countryside setting and would not accord with the definition of infilling set out in LPP1 policy MRTA3. I have not been provided with any sound evidence that the proposal would reinforce the settlement’s role and function or realise local community aspirations.

Therefore, for the reasons given, the development would not be in a suitable location having regard to the development plan policies concerned with new housing in the countryside and would harm the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. As a result it conflicts with LPP1 policies MTRA3, MTRA4 and CP20 and policies DM1, DM15, DM16 and DM23 of the Winchester District Local Plan Part 2 Development Management and Site Allocations 2017 (LPP2) in so far as they seek to control development in the countryside and protect local distinctiveness and the rural character of the area.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.

The grade II listed Wollams1 derives its significance primarily from its origins as a late eighteenth century house with mid-19th century extensions with stucco front walls. The appellant’s ‘Archaeology Desk-Based Assessment & Heritage Statement’ indicates that the site originally appears to have encompassed two fields which during the early 20th century were under the control of Wollams.

Whilst the site therefore has a historic relationship to the listed building, I have not been provided with any clear evidence of any other historic functional links between the heritage asset and the site. Wollams is now separated from the site by a dense belt of trees and undergrowth. As a result, the listed building is not visible from the site and is primarily experienced through limited views of it from [site address] . As a consequence, the site makes a neutral contribution to the significance of the

Whilst the proposed dwelling would be substantial and have a contemporary design, the distance between it and Wollams coupled with the intervening trees and undergrowth means that it would not have a harmful effect on the significance of the listed building or the ability to appreciate it. Although the belt of trees is not 1 List entry 1095646 currently the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO), I have not been provided with any convincing evidence that the development would result in their removal.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building known as Wollams and would comply with LPP1 policy CP20 and LPP2 policy DM29 in so far as they seek to conserve the historic environment and heritage assets.

Vehicular access would be provided to the B3035 in the position of an existing gate and dropped kerb. The road outside the site is relatively straight and has a 40mph speed limit. I saw on my visit that it has a steady flow of vehicles in both directions. The relevant technical guidance referred to by the Council indicates that the required visibility splays for a road with a speed limit of 40mph is 2.4m by 96m. From the evidence before me and in the absence of any information on traffic speeds in the vicinity of the site, I am satisfied that these are the appropriate visibility splay requirements in this instance.

Whilst plan SCP/25083/01 demonstrates how these dimensions could be achieved for the access shown on that plan, the position of the access on the proposed site plan, and on which I am basing my decision, is further to the southwest, adjacent to the site boundary, the existing access to [address] and a telegraph pole.

From my observations on site, the telegraph pole and hedgerow fronting [address] could obstruct the south westerly view of drivers of vehicles exiting the site. [name] am satisfied that sufficient visibility could be achieved to the north east, it has not been demonstrated that the required visibility splay to the south west could be secured.

I have therefore given careful consideration as to whether a planning condition could be imposed if the appeal is allowed to ensure that the required visibility splays are provided. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that it may be possible to use a condition worded in a negative form (a ‘Grampian’ condition) to prohibit development authorised by the planning permission or other aspects linked to the planning permission (e.g. occupation of premises) until a specified action has been taken. The provision of the required visibility splays would be an example of such a specified action. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that there are no prospects at all of the visibility splays being provided within the time-limit imposed by the permission if the appeal was allowed or that a Grampian condition would not be reasonable or enforceable.

Therefore, as the otherwise unacceptable lack of appropriate visibility splays could be made acceptable through the use of a condition preventing the occupation of the dwelling until the visibility splays are provided, the proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. As a consequence, it would comply with LPP2 policy DM18 which requires that development makes provision for access in a safe and effective manner and in accordance with highway requirements.

Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC) places a statutory duty on public authorities to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Biodiversity net gain (BNG) is required under the statutory framework introduced by Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (inserted by the Environment Act 2021).

Policy CP16 of the LPP1 is broadly consistent with these statutory requirements with new development required to show how biodiversity can be retained, protected and enhanced through its design and implementation.

The Ecological Assessment indicates that the woodland on site is mapped as Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland, a priority habitat under section 41 of NERC.

The proposal would result in part of the site being replaced by a dwelling and its garden. However, the Ecological Assessment concludes that, given the scale of the proposal, minimal impacts on protected wildlife are anticipated and mitigation measures have been suggested where impacts can be avoided. The Ecological Assessment proposes a Habitat Management Plan to retain, protect and manage the woodland to improve its biodiversity value. Such a plan, together with a Construction Environmental Management Plan to minimise impacts on the woodland and hedgerows during construction could be secured by appropriately worded conditions if the appeal is allowed.

The PPG states that the statutory framework for BNG involves the discharge of the biodiversity gain condition following the grant of planning permission to ensure the objective of at least 10% net gain will be met for a development. The determination of the Biodiversity Gain Plan under this condition is the mechanism to confirm whether the development meets the biodiversity gain objective. Development may not be begun until the Biodiversity Gain Plan is approved. Given this, the PPG advises that it would generally be inappropriate for decision makers, when determining a planning application for a development subject to biodiversity net gain, to refuse an application on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective will not be met.

The appellant accepts that the general biodiversity condition would apply to the proposal. Whilst the Council raises issues relating to the quality and extent of the information that has been submitted regarding biodiversity, this is a matter which can be addressed through the discharge of the condition if the appeal were allowed.

Through the measures identified above, biodiversity would be enhanced and an adverse impact on biodiversity avoided. As a result, the proposal would comply with LPP1 policy C16 regarding biodiversity.

The existing mature trees on the site contribute to the verdant character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. Their contribution to the character and amenity of the site and its surroundings means they are notable in their local environment.

Whilst not currently protected by a TPO, trees T9, T10, T3 and T11 closest to the site of the proposed dwelling are identified in the appellant’s ‘Arboricultural impact assessment and BS5837 survey’ (the AIA) as ‘[name] trees, meaning they are assessed as trees of high quality with an estimated life expectancy of at least 40 years. Their prominence and quality means they are special trees for the purposes of LPP2 policy DM24.

Although the Council’s fifth reason for refusal states that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful impact on retained trees both on and off site, neither the reason for refusal nor the Council’s statement of case clearly specify which trees it considers would be harmed.

The proposed site plan shows that the north elevation of the dwelling would face onto the belt of trees to be retained along the north western boundary with the east elevation of the proposed dwelling facing towards trees T10, T9 and T3 and the group of other trees separating the site from Wollams to the north east.

The building would be sited beyond the canopies and root protection areas of trees T3, T9 and T10 with space retained between the trees and the building. Although the eastern side elevation of the dwelling would have habitable windows facing those trees, there would be a gap between them and the trees.

Whilst the trees, when in full leaf, would restrict the amount of sunlight reaching the habitable room windows from the east and shade the garden and patio, I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that this, leaf detritus, nuts and seeds, or birds fouling would necessarily result in post development pressure to prune or remove the trees. Nor have I been provided with any clear evidence that the proximity of the development to the trees on the north western side of the site, including T11, would result in harmful impacts on them.

Although the appellant’s evidence states that no trees are required to be removed by the proposal and the AIA includes a tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement, the proposed layout plan does not specify in detail the existing trees which are to be retained. I am satisfied that this, together with the implementation of the [name], could be secured by condition if the appeal were to be allowed

For these reasons, from the evidence before me, the development would not have a harmful effect on trees proposed to be retained and would comply with LPP2 policy DM24 which seeks to prevent the loss or deterioration of special trees.

The Design and [name] indicates that a dedicated space is proposed within a ground floor room at the rear of the proposed garage close to the boundary of the site with [address] to accommodate sustainable technology. This would include an air source heat pump. No technical information about the air source heat pump has been provided with the appeal.

Whilst the pump is proposed to be installed within the building, the absence of information regarding the level of noise it would generate means that the effect it might have on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] cannot be fully assessed.

However, I am satisfied that a suitably worded condition could be imposed if the appeal is allowed to require the submission of the necessary technical details of the pump and associated equipment. Conditions could also be reasonably imposed to require the submission of a noise assessment and the implementation of any required mitigation prior to the installation of the pump and equipment.

As the technical details, noise assessment and any required mitigation could be secured by conditions, the living conditions of the occupants of [address] would not be unacceptably harmed as a result of noise. The proposal would therefore comply with LPP2 policy DM20 which seeks to ensure that noise does not have an unacceptable impact on human health or quality of life.

The site is within 5.6km of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Areas (SPAs), the [name], and the Chichester and [name], collectively referred to by the Council as the [name]. The effect of the development on the water environment of the SPAs and the potential for future occupiers of the development to contribute to the disturbance of over wintering birds in the SPAs are relevant matters. However, regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 indicates that the requirement for an Appropriate Assessment is only necessary where the competent authority is minded to give consent for the proposed development. Therefore, given my conclusions on the first main issue, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter in any further detail.

I am aware of a previous appeal2 on the site which was dismissed in 1986. However, I am not aware of the details of that scheme or the development plan policies which applied at the time. I have therefore given it very limited weight in this appeal which I have determined on its individual merits.

The harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the site and its countryside location results in conflict with LPP1 policies MTRA3, MTRA4 and CP20 and LPP2 policies DM1, DM15, DM16 and DM23. This is sufficient to cause conflict with the development plan as a whole which carries substantial weight against the proposal. Whilst the proposal would provide an additional, energy efficient dwelling, this does not outweigh the harm caused by the conflict with the

In conclusion, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.