Appeal 6000608

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: - The effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area; - The effect upon the living conditions of nearby residents, with particular regard to noise and disturbance; and - The effect upon protected habitat sites.

[site address] (No 44) is a detached bungalow positioned within a mostly residential area comprising a mix of houses and bungalows of various ages and styles. No 44 is part of the long line of mostly detached bungalows that are positioned behind similar sized front gardens to the western side of the road. These bungalows also have deep rear gardens, and they form an open setting to the buildings that is evident from the road due to the gaps between the dwellings. When viewed from the public realm, including from [address], the gardens create a spacious, often verdant backdrop to the dwellings.

The two semi-detached single storey bungalows would be positioned at the westernmost end of the garden, with the existing driveway to No 44 being extended to provide parking and turning space. The bungalows have been designed to have similar heights to those nearby, and both would have rear gardens. The long length of the drive, along with the additional residential paraphernalia, uses, and activity associated with two dwellings, would give the bungalows a legible presence as homes within a rear garden position. Two homes would erode the open, expansive continuity of the rear gardens and the contribution they make to the character and appearance of the area.

Although the bungalows would be in a similar position and be of a similar size and height to an extant permission for a detached bungalow (application ref: P/24/1656/FP), two homes would result in a consequential increased intensity of uses and activity that would conflict with the subservient nature that characterises the rear gardens of the dwellings. Even though the bungalows have been designed to appear as a single dwelling, the duplication of residential uses and boundary treatments would be apparent despite such measures.

Compared to the single bungalow, two dwellings would increase the requirements for parking and turning space. Such areas would dominate the site, as well as resulting in a constricted layout, with one dwelling having a curiously contrived space for a front garden, and the other having only a narrow strip. Furthermore, the westernmost dwelling would have no immediately evident front door as it would be tucked away to one side, being accessed via a narrow pathway that would be close to the property boundary. Not only would such a position appear incongruously concealed, but when combined with the presence of a bin store opposite the front door, the resultant effect would be of a harmfully constrained and contrived arrangement.

The appellant has pointed out that garden size would be a matter of choice for future occupiers, particularly as there is no minimum size specified in the Council’s Local Plan (2023) (LP) and supporting Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2015). There are a range of garden sizes nearby, including some that have small rear gardens such as at [address] (No 2). However, this bungalow has a larger total garden space, and an active relationship with the public highway. Despite the proximity of No 2 to the boundary with the appeal site, both this bungalow and that at [address] have a defined separation to each other so that they do not appear overly constrained. Neither of these bungalows have large areas of space dedicated to driveways, parking and turning provision as would occur with those proposed. Given these differences, these bungalows do not have the same cramped intensity of use and activity as would occur with the appeal scheme.

Other plot subdivisions have occurred in the area, such as the four bungalows at [address]. These semi-detached homes straddle the rear of two properties along [address] rather than being concentrated in one garden. Despite their plot sizes they have more spacious settings than those proposed, with both having rear gardens and clear active relationships to the parking areas and to the access drive. Given these differences these homes do not form a binding precedent for allowing the appeal.

For these reasons the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and the suggested conditions would not overcome these fundamental harms. There would be conflict with LP Policy D1 which seeks, amongst other things, high quality and well designed development that would respond to local character.

[address] (No 4) is positioned close to the appeal site, having two bedroom windows within its flank wall that are very close to the boundary. One of these bedroom windows would be opposite the proposed parking area, with the other window close by. Despite the provision of a boundary fence and a narrow strip of landscaping to one side of the parking spaces, the close proximity of occurrences of vehicular and pedestrian activity associated with this area and also with the pathway to the front door of this dwelling, would result in frequent noise and disturbance to the occupiers of No 4.

A front door and a bin store would be directly to the rear of the garden room within No 4, but this building would not be in a position to mitigate the daily activity associated with the parking spaces and the pathway that would occur close to the bedroom windows. Whilst the appellant has offered to erect a 2m high acoustic fence along the boundary, such measures would not address the disturbance arising from lights and the day-to-day comings and goings associated with a home, and particularly so in this case as the pathway is the only means of pedestrian access to the bungalow. Nor would such a fence ameliorate odour nuisance arising from the bin store.

Whilst the permitted bungalow would be in a similar position to that proposed, the parking spaces for this scheme would be near to the northern site boundary and would not thereby have the same harmful proximity to No 4. Furthermore, the provision of two dwellings would result in a greater level of activity, noise and disturbance to nearby residents than would occur with the single bungalow, including with regard to vehicular activity.

The scheme would result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupiers of No 4, and the suggested conditions and amelioration measures would not mitigate these harms. There would be conflict with the requirements of LP Policy D2 as it requires, amongst other things, that development does not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the environmental conditions of neighbouring occupants.

The Solent Coastal Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar recognise the international importance of these estuarine and adjacent coastal habitats and the populations of migratory and wading birds they support, including breeding birds and wintering wildfowl. These habitat sites 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 recreational pressure upon them, eroding their integrity through habitat destruction and disturbance to species. Additional residents arising from the dwellings would also result in increased recreational disturbance upon the New Forest SPA, Special Area of Conservation and Ramsar, designations which recognise the international importance of these heathlands, bogs, grassland and woodland habitats and the rare flora and fauna species they support, including insects, reptiles, and breeding and overwintering birds.

Given the location of the appeal site, future occupiers would be likely to impact upon these habitat sites thereby having a significant effect upon their integrity as a result of increased recreational pressures. 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 a proposal, either alone or in combination with other schemes, a duty that falls to occur with the appeal.

[name] NE1 and NE3 seek to protect, conserve and enhance designated international nature conservation sites, with development resulting in a net increase in residential units being expected to provide either a financial contribution for mitigation, or through measures provided by the developer for the lifetime of the development.

Although the appellant has acknowledged that mitigation is necessary, no details of any developer measures nor any legal agreements or payments to secure mitigation has been provided for the appeal. Whilst the Council has referred to the appellant having entered into two S111 agreements, neither copies of these documents nor details of the associated payments have been provided by either of the main parties.

As the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters have not been pursued. In the absence of copies of the legal agreements and payment it has not been demonstrated that the required mitigation measures have been secured. The scheme would thereby fail to accord with the requirements of the above referenced LP policies. In such a circumstance, 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 into the Solent.

Local residents have raised a number of other concerns, including outlook, privacy, and vehicular access issues. Following the findings on the main issues, there is no need to consider these matters further.

With a five year housing land supply of 3.8 years the Council has a significant shortfall, and the provision of an additional two homes would be an important benefit of the scheme that would weigh in its favour. The Framework supports the development of windfall sites and the use of under-utilised land, with great weight for the use of a site within an existing settlement, and the scheme would accord with these objectives. Future occupiers would be close to nearby local 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 area, and that nearby residents would experience unacceptable living conditions. These harms are considerable and weigh very heavily against the proposal. The Framework also requires that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. [name] D1 and D2 are broadly consistent with the Framework and its requirements for development to be sympathetic to local character, and that which provides a high standard of amenity for existing users. [name] NE1 and NE3 accord with the Framework and its requirement of protecting and enhancing biodiversity, particularly as the Framework also makes it clear 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 outweighs the benefits. In addition, the harms to the habitat sites provide a strong reason 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.