Appeal 6000620

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a nine-bedroom nine-person House in [name] with associated car parking ([name]) at [site address] , Gosport, Hampshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00065/FULL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In the interests of clarity and precision, I have used the description of development given on the Council’s Decision Notice as opposed to that stated on the application form. The appellant has indicated no objection to the Council’s description being used, and I am content that no party with an interest in the outcome of the appeal is prejudiced by me taking this approach.

The appellant has submitted an alternative parking layout1 for consideration. As this incorporates merely minor adjustments, does not alter either the quantum of development or the nature of the use, and as the Council and interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the general principle of parking provision, I am satisfied that me considering this drawing does not give rise to procedural unfairness. I have therefore taken it into account.

The Council, at appeal stage, has indicated that it is satisfied that its second and third reasons for refusing planning permission, which refer to nitrogen discharge and recreation disturbance related to designated habitats sites, have now, from its perspective, been addressed. Nevertheless, in lieu of statutory duties that apply and my role as competent authority, I have retained these matters as main issues for consideration. 1 Ref: 24023-STA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2100 Rev P08

The main issues are: • whether the proposed parking provision and layout would result in unacceptable impacts on highway safety or residential amenity; • whether the development would achieve nutrient neutrality, or otherwise secure appropriate mitigation for increased nutrient discharge affecting European designated sites; and • whether adequate mitigation is secured to address recreational disturbance impacts on the Solent Special Protection Areas (SPAs).

The appeal property occupies an end-of-terrace plot within a residential area that is characterised by small terraced houses arranged in short, regular streets. The dwelling is larger than many nearby properties and benefits from a side garden and an existing gated parking space at the front. A narrow service road runs along the rear boundaries of properties on [address] and [address], providing access to a mixture of informal parking areas and rear gardens. The wider area contains a range of local shops and services on [address], together with bus routes and a small public car park on [address] within a short walking distance of the site.

The proposal includes three on-site parking spaces. One at the front of the property and two accessed from the rear service road. The key considerations are whether the submitted plans demonstrate that these spaces can be physically accommodated with workable manoeuvring, and whether any residual parking demand would materially worsen conditions on surrounding streets where parking pressure is already high.

The existing lawful use of the property as a dwelling includes a single off-street parking space. A realistic fallback position exists, as corroborated by a recently issued Certificate of [name] Use2, whereby the property could operate as a six-person HMO without the need for planning permission, and this could occur with only that single space or, given the current absence of any condition requiring said space to be retained, potentially no on-site parking at all. This establishes a realistic baseline against which the effects of the proposal should be judged.

The plans show that the front parking space can be retained within the existing access arrangement. To the rear, the submitted drawings and the alternative layout provided at appeal demonstrate that two spaces can be positioned within the width and depth of the plot without encroaching onto neighbouring land or obstructing the cycle or refuse storage areas. Consistent with my observations during inspection, the rear service road is lightly trafficked and already used for reversing manoeuvres by nearby properties. Within this context, the turning movements required to enter and leave the rear spaces would be typical of those commonly undertaken along the service road. While some multi-point turns may be necessary, the manoeuvres would take place at low speeds and within an 2 Application reference 25/00215/LDCP environment where such movements are expected. On this basis, the plans demonstrate that the two rear spaces can be accommodated in a practical and workable manner.

The site is within a realistic walking distance of shops, services, bus routes and a public car park on [address] that provides short-stay parking suitable for visitors. In this context, although on-street parking in the surrounding area is heavily used, there is no technical evidence before me indicating that the proposal would generate a level of demand that would materially worsen highway safety or amenity when compared with the valid fallback position. This is even whilst acknowledging references made to pavement parking and difficulties currently experienced when seeking spaces at busy times. The proposal does not alter the public highway, and there is no substantiated evidence that emergency access or pedestrian safety would be compromised.

Taking all of this into account, including the lawful fallback, the improved on-site parking provision, the demonstrated ability to accommodate the proposed spaces and the absence of robust evidence of harm, I find no basis to conclude that the development would result in an unacceptable impact on either highway safety or residential amenity. The proposal therefore accords with Policies LP10 and LP23 of the Gosport Borough Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (LP).

The Solent SPAs comprise the Chichester and [name], the [name], the Solent and [name] and the Solent and [name], designated because their estuarine mudflats, saltmarsh, seagrass and coastal waters support internationally important bird populations.

Chichester and [name] is designated for large overwintering wader and wildfowl assemblages; [name] for productive intertidal feeding habitat for wintering waterbirds; Solent and [name] for breeding terns and Mediterranean gulls and key overwintering species including dark-bellied brent goose and black-tailed godwit; and the Solent and [name] for the offshore marine feeding areas essential to breeding common, Sandwich and little terns.

Residential development within the Solent catchment generates additional wastewater, which in turn contributes to nutrient enrichment within the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation and associated SPAs. Natural England’s advice is clear that, without mitigation, even small increases in nitrogen loading are likely to have a significant effect on these sites. As such, the development must demonstrate nutrient neutrality or secure appropriate mitigation.

The appellant submitted a nitrate budget using the recognised methodology, identifying a mitigation requirement of 2.0 kg [name] per year. This figure reflects the net increase in occupancy associated with the proposal when compared with the existing lawful use. The Council has reviewed the calculation and agrees that the methodology and resulting mitigation requirement are sound. There is no contrary technical evidence before me to suggest that the calculation is inaccurate or that a materially different nitrogen load should be applied.

The appellant has also provided correspondence confirming the availability and intention to purchase nitrate-mitigation credits from Heaton Farms Ltd, a provider operating within the correct hydrological catchment and with an established agreement recognised by the Council. The mitigation credits would offset the identified nitrogen load in perpetuity, consistent with Natural England’s guidance that mitigation must be secured for the lifetime of the development.

The Council confirms that securing mitigation by condition is an appropriate mechanism in this case. A Grampian-style condition requiring written confirmation of the purchase of the necessary credits prior to first occupation would ensure that the development cannot proceed without the mitigation being in place. This approach is consistent with other permissions granted within the Borough and with the precautionary principle embedded in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

Given the agreed nitrate budget, the identified mitigation provider and the ability to secure mitigation through an enforceable condition, I am satisfied that the development would achieve nutrient neutrality.

Additionally, residential development within the Borough is expected to contribute to additional recreational activity along the coast, which can disturb the bird species for which the SPAs are designated. Natural England’s advice identifies this as a likely significant effect unless mitigation is secured.

The Gosport Bird Disturbance Mitigation Protocol provides a strategic mechanism to address this impact. It requires a financial contribution from new residential development to fund wardening, monitoring, and habitat-management measures across the Solent. The appellant has provided evidence of payment of the required contribution, and the Council confirms that the payment has been received and is sufficient to mitigate the identified impact.

The Protocol is an established and widely used mitigation scheme endorsed by Natural England. It is specifically designed to address the recreational-disturbance pathway and has been relied upon in numerous permissions across the Borough. The contribution made by the appellant ensures that the development will not add unmitigated recreational pressure to the SPAs.

In light of the payment made, the strategic nature of the mitigation scheme and the confirmation that the contribution is sufficient, I am satisfied that the development would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the [name] in respect of recreational disturbance.

On the basis of the mitigation secured and the conditions imposed, I am satisfied that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of any European site, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. Consequently, the proposal complies with Policies LP42 and LP44 of the LP and the Habitats Regulations.

Local residents have raised concerns about matters that include noise and disturbance, anti-social behaviour, crime, privacy, drainage, waste management, pressure on local services and the effect on the character of the area. I have taken all of these matters into account.

Regarding potential noise, disturbance, anti-social behaviour and crime, I note that planning decisions must be based on land-use impacts rather than assumptions about the behaviour of future occupiers. There is no evidence that the proposed HMO would generate unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance beyond that which could arise from a large family dwelling or a Class C4 HMO operating under permitted development rights. In any event, issues of anti-social behaviour are addressed through other legislation.

On privacy and overlooking, the proposal introduces no new upper-floor windows and does not alter the building envelope. The minor fenestration changes would not create materially different views towards neighbouring properties. I am therefore satisfied that the living conditions of adjoining occupiers would not be harmed.

Objections relating to the loss of a family dwelling and the compatibility of an HMO with the area have also been considered. The property is a large dwelling within a mixed residential environment, and small-scale HMOs are not uncommon in urban settings. The proposal involves no extension of the building and only modest external alterations. I therefore find no conflict with the prevailing character or appearance of the locality.

Concerns regarding drainage, refuse storage and waste management have been raised. The plans identify dedicated bin storage, and the Council’s Streetscene team has confirmed the required capacity. Detailed arrangements can be secured by condition. There is no technical evidence to indicate that the development would cause drainage problems.

Some residents refer to pressure on local services such as doctors and dentists. [name] acknowledge these concerns, there is no substantive evidence that the modest increase in population associated with the proposal would place unacceptable strain on local infrastructure.

Concerns about property values have also been raised. This is not a material planning consideration and has not influenced my decision. Moreover, the proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise.

I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Only those that are necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable have been imposed.

A standard commencement condition and a condition listing the approved plans are required to provide certainty and ensure the development proceeds as assessed. Although the external alterations are limited, a materials-matching condition is necessary to safeguard the appearance of the building.

Given the nature of the proposal, it is essential that the communal kitchen/diner, living room and external amenity spaces are provided before occupation and retained thereafter to ensure an acceptable standard of accommodation. For the same reason, and reflecting the nutrient mitigation calculations, it is necessary to limit occupation to a maximum of nine residents.

Conditions requiring the provision and retention of the three parking spaces, secure cycle storage and adequate refuse and recycling facilities are needed to ensure the development functions acceptably and does not harm highway safety or residential amenity.

As the site lies within the Solent catchment, a condition requiring the submission and implementation of mitigation for recreational disturbance and nutrient neutrality is necessary to avoid adverse effects on European designated sites. A further condition requiring water-efficiency measures is also justified to support the nutrient mitigation strategy. Both are precise, enforceable and consistent with the Habitats Regulations.

Moreover, any suggestions made that the water-efficiency condition would effectively amount to a double counting of mitigation measures and/or be ambiguous/unenforceable have not, in my judgement, been robustly substantiated.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos PP-13736147v1, 24023-STA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2100 Rev P08, 24023-STA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2200 Rev P10 and 24023-STA-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-2300 Rev P04.

The external materials used in the development shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall be occupied by no more than nine residents at any one time while in use as a House in [name].

The development shall not be occupied until a scheme for the mitigation of: (a) increased recreational disturbance to the Solent Special Protection Areas; and (b) increased nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Solent water environment has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in full accordance with the approved scheme, and all mitigation measures shall be permanently retained.

The development shall not be occupied until: (a) a water-efficiency calculation, prepared in accordance with the Government’s National Calculation Methodology, demonstrating that no more than 110 litres of water per person per day will be consumed within the development, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority; and (b) the approved water-efficiency measures have been installed. The approved measures shall thereafter be retained.

The communal kitchen/diner, living room and external amenity spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for communal use by occupiers of the HMO at all times.

The three parking spaces (spaces 1–3) and their associated access arrangements shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to first occupation of the development. The parking spaces shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept available for the parking of vehicles associated with the development.

Secure and weatherproof bicycle storage facilities shall be provided in accordance with a detailed scheme that has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be installed prior to first occupation and thereafter retained for the storage of bicycles at all times.

Facilities for the storage of refuse and recyclable materials shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained and kept available for this purpose at all times. End of Schedule