Appeal 6000638

The appeal is dismissed.

Outline planning permission is sought, but with only details of access and layout to be considered at this stage. Accordingly, I have taken any indication of appearance, landscaping and scale shown on the submitted drawings to be illustrative.

Although not cited as a formal reason for refusal, the Council’s evidence suggests that the proposal would conflict with the local development strategy for housing delivery, particularly in respect of new housing in the countryside. Given the significance of this matter and its bearing on the overall planning balance, I consider it necessary to reach my own conclusions on this issue. Accordingly, I have treated this as a main issue in my reasoning below.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area; • whether the proposal would provide opportunities for sustainable transport, accessibility to services and facilities and the transition to a low carbon future; and • the effect of the proposed development on the landscape character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies outside any defined Settlement Policy Boundary. Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011–2029) (Local Plan) sets out the spatial strategy for housing delivery, directing development to Settlement Policy Boundaries and allocated sites, and resisting the encroachment of development into rural areas. It confirms that land outside these boundaries will be treated as countryside. Exception sites may be permitted where they meet specific criteria in other policies or where it is essential for the proposal to be located in the countryside.

Policy SS6 identifies limited circumstances where new housing in the countryside may be acceptable. The appeal proposal does not fall within any of these exceptions. While criterion (e) of Policy SS6 supports small-scale residential proposals that meet a locally agreed need, the appellant has not demonstrated that the scheme would satisfy this requirement. Therefore, although the proposal would contribute to the district’s general housing supply, it has not been shown to address a specific locally agreed need. Accordingly, the proposal fails to meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy SS6 and is not supported by any other policies.

Consequently, the proposed development would not provide a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area. It would conflict with Policies SS1, SS6 and SD1 of the Local Plan, which collectively seek to focus new housing within settlement boundaries and restrict development in the countryside except where defined criteria are met, which the proposal does not achieve. Sustainable transport, accessibility to services and facilities and the transition to a low carbon future

The nearest villages to the appeal site are Ellisfield (approximately 1.7 km) and Axford (approximately 2.5 km). Neither offers a comprehensive range of services or facilities, although Ellisfield provides a public house, post box, church, and memorial hall. [name], around 4 km away, offers limited amenities, including a primary school, pre-school, village hall, church, and tennis club. Cliddesden, within 6 km, includes a primary school, nursery, and public house. For a broader range of services, future occupants would need to travel to larger settlements such as Basingstoke or Winchester.

Public transport provision is extremely limited. A bus stop along Green Lane, approximately 309 metres away, is served only by a ‘hail and ride’ service operating on Wednesdays and Fridays, with two journeys each way per day. This offers minimal sustainable travel opportunities. Consequently, future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles for day-to-day needs, meaning the proposal would not be well served by public transport or local services, raising significant concerns about opportunities for sustainable transport.

I acknowledge that Ellisfield contains a disused telephone box operating as a local book loan service and that there is an informal play area with swings, benches, goalposts, and space for free play, located approximately a 15-minute walk from the site. I also note the site’s proximity to the A339, which provides connections to the A31 towards Winchester and Farnham, and the M3 towards Southampton and Sunbury-on-Thames. Furthermore, [name], situated around 6 km from the appeal site, offers some employment opportunities. However, these provisions are limited and do not outweigh the harm identified in relation to the site’s poor accessibility to services and facilities and its reliance on private vehicles.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in decision-making. However, my findings above would mean that the site’s location does not provide opportunities for sustainable transport accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants to reasonably carry out day-to-day activities, in particular during inclement weather and during the hours of darkness. Furthermore, the lack of opportunities for sustainable transport solutions would not support the transition to a low carbon future.

The Bramshill1 judgment clarified that a site is regarded as ‘isolated’ under paragraph 80 of the Framework only where it comprises a single dwelling on its own, physically separate from any other dwelling. In this case, the appeal site lies adjacent to a cluster of properties along [address], [site address] , and Green Lane, amounting to around 25 dwellings. Accordingly, it would not be physically isolated from other built development and does not fall within that strict definition. Nevertheless, this cluster does not amount to a settlement for the purposes of promoting sustainable development. It has no defined settlement boundary and lacks services or facilities typically associated with a village, such as a school, shop, or community hall.

Furthermore, I have considered the earlier appeal decisions that the appellant has highlighted2, While these cases demonstrate that physical proximity to other dwellings may mean a site is not isolated, the harm I have identified does not arise solely from whether the site is physically isolated. It relates to the lack of accessibility to services and facilities, which would leave future occupiers heavily reliant on private vehicles. The cited decisions do not change these circumstances.

However, the Local Plan indicates that new dwellings may be considered isolated where they are not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1 km of a settlement policy boundary). The appeal site falls outside these parameters and is located beyond any village containing at least one service or facility. Consequently, while not ‘isolated’ in the Bramshill sense, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from essential services and public transport, and therefore conflicts with the objectives of the Framework and the Local Plan to direct development to sustainable locations.

Paragraph 83 of the Framework seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas by locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities and support local services. Although the site is served by a network of public rights of way and lies within cycling distance (less than 8 km) of several settlements, including [name], Herriard, Bradley, and Axford, these opportunities are unlikely to provide a practical alternative to car use for most day-to-day journeys. This is due to the rural character of the area, the absence of dedicated cycling infrastructure, and the very limited services available within these settlements. 1 City and Country Bramshill v SSHCLG [2021] [name] 320 2 [name]/H1705/W/25/3361625, APP/H1705/W/3363048 and APP/H1705/W/24/3347575.

In addition, as set out, public transport provision is negligible, and the nearest villages offer only minimal facilities. As a result, the proposal would not materially support local services or contribute to community vitality, nor would it provide realistic sustainable travel options. Accordingly, the development would conflict with the objectives of paragraph 83 of the Framework.

While the transition to electric vehicles is a positive step towards reducing carbon emissions, this does not address the fundamental accessibility and sustainability concerns of the proposal. The appeal site remains poorly served by public transport and is remote from settlements offering a meaningful range of services. The reliance on the car for almost all day-to-day needs would persist. This continued dependency conflicts with the objective of reducing the need to travel and promoting sustainable patterns of development. While the highways authority did not raise an objection on road safety or capacity grounds, the absence of congestion does not alter my findings that the proposal would fail to provide opportunities for sustainable transport and would conflict with these objectives.

[name] acknowledge the findings in the earlier appeal decisions cited by the appellant3, the circumstances of those cases differ materially from the current proposal. In the Hydestile appeal, the Inspector noted that the site was served by a bus stop only 550 metres away, with a daily bus service, providing a realistic alternative to private car use. Similarly, in the Ellisfield case, the Inspector was satisfied that the scheme offered a genuine choice of transport modes.

By contrast, the appeal site is served only by a twice-weekly hail-and-ride bus service, which offers very limited and infrequent connectivity. The nearest villages provide minimal facilities, and [name], which offers a slightly greater range of amenities, lies approximately 4 km away. These factors mean that future occupants would be heavily reliant on private vehicles for day-to-day needs, and the proposal does not provide a genuine choice of transport modes. Therefore, the cited appeal decisions do not alter my findings above.

While the appellant contends that a 1.6km walking distance is reasonable, I note that this significantly exceeds the 800m distance identified in Manual for Streets and the National Design Guide as a realistic walking distance for day-to-day needs. Nevertheless, even if local facilities existed within this range, the absence of footpaths and street lighting would make walking unattractive and potentially unsafe. Similarly, while cycling is referenced, an 8km distance is unlikely to represent a practical or convenient option for most residents, particularly families or those with mobility issues.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development would fail to provide realistic opportunities for sustainable transport, convenient access to services and facilities, or meaningfully contribute to the transition to a low-carbon future. It would therefore conflict with Policy CN9 of the Local Plan and the objectives of the Framework, which collectively seek to minimise the need to travel, promote sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility, and support decarbonisation. Development should be high quality and sustainable in design, construction, and layout, offering flexibility in travel choices, including walking and cycling, and ensuring accessibility for all users. 3 APP/R3650/W/24/3352222 and APP/M3645/W/24/3347815

The appeal site comprises a rectangular parcel of land situated to the east of [site address] , within the open countryside. It forms part of an open pasture field that rises gently from the lane, with agricultural land and woodland to the north and east. A four-bar fence runs along the site frontage adjacent to the highway, with some sporadic trees along the boundary. A Tree Preservation Order applies to an oak tree at the site frontage (T1) and to a woodland area (W1) along the remainder of the frontage to the north-east, which also falls within the appellant’s ownership.

While the site adjoins a small cluster of dwellings to the south and west, which have developed in a linear pattern along rural lanes, the wider landscape is characterised by a dispersed settlement pattern set within an expansive context of open agricultural fields and substantial woodland blocks, forming part of the rural setting of the area. Existing development along [site address] is confined to the north-western side, whereas the eastern side contrasts with this, presenting verdant open countryside. The properties known as Gravelins and Oakdene take vehicular access from [site address] . However, their principal frontages address [address], with pedestrian access linking to this. This creates a clear edge of residential development to the south of the site, running along the rear boundary of the dwellings from Oakdene to Sangria.

Approaching the site from the north, existing dwellings on the opposite side of [site address] and those to the south are largely screened by landform and vegetation. In contrast, the appeal site is more exposed and visible from the road, placing it in a sensitive position within the landscape. While the appellant refers to a change in character further north, coinciding with the increase in speed limit from 30mph to 60mph, the narrow rural lanes, wide grass verges, and absence of footpaths and street lighting maintain a distinctly rural character within the 30mph zone. Accordingly, the appeal site cannot reasonably be regarded as being ‘within the character of the built-up area’ as suggested by the appellant. In its current form, the site’s openness, absence of built development, and slightly elevated position make a positive contribution to the rural setting and to the landscape character and appearance of the area.

Although details relating to scale, appearance, and landscaping are reserved, the proposal would introduce two dwellings together with associated access, driveway parking, and domestic paraphernalia into what is currently an open field. This would lead to the subdivision of the land and a permanent alteration to its appearance, eroding its rural qualities and interrupting views across the field to the wider landscape beyond. The associated hard surfacing, engineering works, and domestic features would appear incongruous on the eastern side of [site address] and unsympathetic to the prevailing landscape character and local distinctiveness. As a result, the development would cause harm to the landscape character and visual quality of the area, conflicting with the established pattern of development.

I acknowledge that the site lies adjacent to an existing cluster of dwellings and that proposed screening and planting would provide some degree of mitigation. The appellant has also drawn my attention to the fact that the Council’s Landscape Officer acknowledges that there is an established linear grain of development along [site address] . However, these measures would not address the fundamental change arising from the introduction of built form into an open agricultural field. The proposal would introduce residential development on the eastern side of [site address] , extending the clearly defined boundary of built form further into the open countryside. This would erode the distinction between agricultural land and residential plots to the south, which is a defining characteristic of the local landscape.

Although the appellant suggests the scheme would ‘round off’ development, the presence of other dwellings and associated paraphernalia along [site address] , including [address] opposite the appeal site on higher ground, does not justify further encroachment into the open countryside, resulting in the loss of openness and rural qualities that contribute to the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposed mitigation and contextual arguments do not overcome the harm identified to the landscape character and appearance.

I acknowledge the appellant’s point that the existing dwellings in the local context display a mixed appearance and lack overall uniformity. However, the absence of a standardised architectural character does not negate the importance of the settlement’s underlying spatial pattern and rural setting. The harm I have identified arises not from design uniformity but from the encroachment of built form into an open agricultural field. Consequently, the mixed appearance of existing dwellings does not overcome the identified harm to the landscape character and rural setting.

The appellant points out that the Council’s Landscape Officer did not update their comments following the reduction in the scheme from three dwellings to two. However, in these circumstances, I accept the Council’s position that further consultation is not always necessary where the fundamental concerns remain unchanged. In this case, the [name] comments focused on the introduction of new development to the southeast of [site address] , identifying harm arising from built form, access, driveways, parking areas, and domestic paraphernalia. These impacts would persist irrespective of whether two or three dwellings were proposed. Accordingly, I agree that any re-consultation would not have altered the substance of the [name] assessment or my own findings on landscape harm.

Therefore, in view of the above, the proposal would harm the landscape character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policies EM1 and EM10 of the Local Plan. Collectively, these policies seek high-quality design that are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned. Development proposals will be permitted where they positively contribute to local distinctiveness and sense of place and respects the existing street scene. The proposal would also be contrary to the principles set out in Chapter 12 of the Framework, which promotes well-designed development that is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

I acknowledge that the site does not affect any designated heritage assets and lies within [name] 1, with a very low risk of surface water flooding. However, the absence of such constraints does not alter or outweigh the harm I have identified.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the Council’s Call for Sites consultation undertaken in early 2025. While this exercise invited landowners and developers to submit sites for consideration, it does not confer any planning status or indicate that such sites are suitable for development. The Council have referred me to its [name] and Economic Land Availability Assessment, published in December 2024, which identifies that the first site put forward (EL001) lies within the countryside and is not in line with the current planning framework. Furthermore, the draft update to the spatial strategy for the emerging Local Plan 4 does not propose any allocations in or around Ellisfield, reflecting the settlement’s rural location and limited sustainability. Accordingly, the Call for Sites process does not provide any support for the appeal proposal, nor does it alter my findings above.

The Solent water environment is internationally designated and suffers from elevated nutrient levels, leading to eutrophication that adversely affects habitats and bird species. Natural England advises that developments within the [name] catchment must address nutrient impacts in accordance with the Habitats Regulations. [name] acknowledge that the appellant proposes mitigation through a package treatment plant (PTP) and that Natural England raised no objection subject to securing this measure by condition, given that I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to undertake an Appropriate Assessment under the Regulations or consider this matter further.

The 2024 Framework introduced a new methodology for calculating local housing need figures. The changes have resulted in an increase in the housing need figure, from 828 dpa to 1,127 dpa as of December 2024. The latest Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council Five-year Housing [name] confirms that the current housing land supply figure is at 2.9 years supply. Consequently, the Council can no longer demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. Footnote 8 of paragraph 11 confirms that this includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Footnote 9 sets out the key policies of the Framework which should be given particular regard.

The proposal would not be in a suitable location for housing, having regard to the development strategy for the area, opportunities for sustainable transport, accessibility to services and facilities, and the transition to a low carbon future. It would also harm the landscape character and appearance of the area. It would lead to conflict with the key policies of the Framework to direct development to sustainable locations, ensuring homes have accessible services, as well as offering a genuine choice of transport modes and avoiding the development of open market homes in the open countryside unless certain circumstances apply. It would also conflict with the key policies which recognise that planning decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with a number of the 4 as set out in Appendix 6 of the Council’s Statement of Case key policies referred to in footnote 9. Whilst the appellant has attributed ‘limited weight’ to the landscape harm, my findings above lead me to conclude that the harms would be significant and long lasting. They would accordingly attract substantial weight.

Whilst the absence of a five-year housing land supply reduces the weight, I can give to the conflict with Policies SS1 and SS6, I do not accept that these policies are wholly out of date. Their underlying purpose of restricting development outside defined settlement boundaries remains consistent with the Framework. Accordingly, I afford the conflict with Policies SS1 and SS6 a moderate degree of weight.

The proposal would make a modest contribution to housing supply, consistent with the Government’s objective set out in the Framework to significantly boost the supply of homes. This benefit attracts significant weight, particularly in the context of the Council’s acknowledged housing land supply shortfall.

The development would generate economic activity during the construction phase and, subsequently, through future occupants contributing to the local economy and supporting the continued viability of services in the area and in Basingstoke. Additionally, the proposal would create opportunities for future residents to establish social and community ties, fostering community involvement. Collectively, these benefits carry moderate weight in favour of the development.

I acknowledge that the development would deliver a net gain in biodiversity. However, as this is now a mandatory requirement under current legislation, it attracts neutral weight in the overall planning balance. The provision of the PTP to deal with nutrient neutrality would also attract neutral weight given it would be required in order for the development to be acceptable. Similarly, while the proposal includes some boundary screening, the limited extent of this provision and the fact that landscaping remains a reserved matter means that I can only attach limited weight to this benefit.

Accordingly, with the above in mind, it is sufficiently clear that while the development brings a number of benefits, I find that the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework when taken as a whole, having particular regard to the relevant key policies.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework and worthy of sufficient weight, that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. The appeal is therefore dismissed.