Appeal 6000737

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, • whether future occupiers of the proposal would have adequate living conditions with regard to the privacy of outdoor space, and • whether the proposal would have adequate access to shops, services and facilities having regard to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework),

The site lies in countryside on the edge of Basingstoke. It consists of a small paddock, forming part of a wider complex at [site address] , including cottages and agricultural buildings now converted into dwellings. These give the area a semi-rural character, despite the presence of the M3 motorway close by. The proposal seeks to erect a new-build dwelling on the site, close to adjacent buildings and gardens.

The proposal would have an amount of garden that exceeds the requirement of the Council’s Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document, July

The arithmetical density of the proposal would be equivalent to around 25 dwellings per hectare, which is not particularly high. The dwelling would have a ridge height not dissimilar to others hereabouts, and there would be few if any publicly obtainable views of the proposal.

Even so, much of the frontage of the property would be taken up with hard surfacing. Moreover, the new dwelling would largely fill the width of its plot, with little space between it and the side boundaries, even excluding boundary hedging. As a result, the proposal would appear unduly cramped and hemmed in, particularly given its rural context. Planning permission has been granted for further dwellings opposite, formed from converted stable buildings. As such, the proposal in addition to the surrounding and previously approved development would give an overdeveloped impression, thus further failing to reflect the semi-rural surroundings.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with policies EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (BDLP), adopted May 2016. These require proposals to be sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area, and to have a high quality of design. It would conflict with the similar requirements of the Framework. Accordingly, I give this harm significant negative weight in the

The proposed dwelling would be located close to a garage serving a neighbouring property, [address]. The garage has first floor accommodation, served by an external staircase. People using this staircase would have views directly down and into the private rear garden of the proposed dwelling. Whilst such movements may only be occasional, the roof space is served by a rooflight which may allow for a reasonably intensive level of use, such as ancillary living accommodation.

Growth of the boundary hedgerow cannot be relied upon to screen such views, particularly in winter months when foliage is reduced, and the long-term survival of vegetation cannot be guaranteed. On this basis, the proximity of the staircase would result in occupiers of the proposed dwelling having a poor standard of outdoor amenity.

The planning permission1 for the garage has a condition requiring development to take place in accordance with the approved plans. These do not show a rooflight or an external staircase. However, even if the garage has been built unlawfully, as suggested by the appellant, there is no evidence to show that the Council is contemplating enforcement action. Indeed, the Council’s position is that the garage as built is now lawful. Consequently, I cannot discount or ignore the presence of the garage and its staircase.

Accordingly, future occupiers of the proposal would not have adequate living conditions with regard to the privacy of outdoor space. It would therefore conflict with BDLP policy EM10, which requires a high quality of amenity for occupiers of developments, including in respect of overlooking. The Framework makes a similar requirement and so I give this harm and conflict significant negative weight in the

The Framework seeks to actively manage patterns of growth in support of sustainable transport objectives, such as to promote walking, cycling and public 1 LPA reference 15/01084/FUL transport. The site and the nearby buildings are located in the countryside where new-build housing development is not normally permitted.

The site is located physically close to the edge of Basingstoke, which has a wide range of shops, services, and public transport connections. However, the M3 motorway provides a physical barrier to accessing these facilities. Occupiers of the proposal would be required to walk or cycle for a considerable distance to reach [address], where the nearest bridge over the M3 is located, before travelling further to the desired facility. Such journeys would not be attractive, particularly for those of limited mobility or in inclement weather. As such, occupiers would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.

Nevertheless, the Framework at paragraphs 110 and 115 recognises that opportunities for sustainable transport usage should take into account location, and that they will vary between urban and rural areas. The close proximity of Basingstoke means that vehicle journey lengths to the town would be relatively short. Consequently, the proposal would be reasonably sustainable.

Many of the appeal examples provided by the Council relate to locations where day-to-day services are in settlements some distance away, rather than being very close to a large town. As a result, the examples are not directly comparable to the proposal before me. In any case, each proposal must be dealt with on its own merits.

The Council alleges that the proposal would conflict with Framework paragraph 84. This seeks to avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside. Having regard to case law2, in the context of the Framework ‘isolated’ means being far away from other places, buildings and people. Conversely, in this case the site is very close to the other residential units and buildings within [site address] . As a result, it would not be isolated for the purposes of the Framework, and so I find no conflict with paragraph 84.

I understand that the Local Plan and its policies have a different definition of ‘isolated’. This applies if the site is not well served by public transport or services and facilities, for example being more than 500 metres from bus stops, or beyond 1km of a Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB). That said, although the nearest bus stops are said to be 1.2km away, there is no dispute that the site is within the 1km distance of the SPB at Basingstoke. Moreover, the Council’s refusal reason does not cite conflict with Local Plan policies in respect of this issue, or with its spatial strategy.

To promote sustainable development in rural areas, Framework paragraph 83 seeks to locate housing where it would maintain or enhance the vitality of rural communities. Future occupiers of the proposal may well focus their day-to-day activities on the facilities in Basingstoke. However, there is little to say that they would not also bring additional social and economic benefits to nearby rural communities in the area, and so I find no conflict with Framework paragraph 83.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would have adequate access to shops, services and facilities having regard to the requirements of the Framework. This matter is therefore neutral in the planning balance. 2 [name] v SSCLG [2018] [name] 610, Bramshill Ltd v SSHLG [2021] [name] 320.

The Council accepts that it cannot currently demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land. It has a shortfall that is significantly below five years, with just 2.94 years of supply. Accordingly, Framework paragraph 11 requires that I determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits inherent in providing an additional residential unit, to assist in addressing the undersupply.

I have found conflict with BDLP policies EM1 and EM10, which are broadly consistent with the Framework. Against that, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the supply of housing, including as a self-build unit. It would also provide reasonably affordable accommodation as a three-bedroom dwelling. Even so, due to the proposal being for only a single property, I give these benefits limited positive weight.

Future occupiers of the proposal would make positive social and economic contributions. It would have further economic benefits, for example to local businesses and to the building industry. The proposal would make more efficient use of the land, which is said by the appellant to be previously developed. I give these benefits further limited positive weight.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the potential effects of the proposal on the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA), and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC), in respect of nutrients. These areas are protected pursuant to the Conservation of Habitats Regulations 2017. [name] found no harm in respect of the main issues, as competent authority I would have carried out an Appropriate Assessment in respect of the potential effects on the SPA and SAC. However, as the balance of considerations is against the proposal, this matter need not be considered any further in this case.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for planning permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Given the harm that I have identified, I consider that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.