Appeal 6000801

The appeal is dismissed.

The conversion works have already been carried out, and at the time of my site visit both flats were occupied. The completed works appear to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore, as the Council did, considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place. Although retrospective, my assessment relates to the plans submitted with the original planning application.

The third reason for refusal related to a lack of cycle parking, however, the Council have accepted that this could be secured by condition.

Given the above, the main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on protected [name], namely the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA and New Forest Ramsar; • whether the proposed development would provide suitable living conditions for future occupiers; and • the effect of the proposed development upon the availability of family housing.

The appeal site is within 5km of the [name], which are covered by international designations including the [name], Dorset Heathlands Ramsar Site, and [name]. It is also within 13.8km of The New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA and New Forest Ramsar.

The Dorset Heathlands support a range of priority habitat species, including various bird species, lizards, and snakes, alongside other wildlife typically associated with lowland heath, wetlands, and dune environments.

The New Forest is of international importance for its breeding and overwintering bird populations, including species such as [name], Nightjar, Woodlark, [name], [name], [name], and [name].

The New Forest is also designated as a SAC for its habitats and non-avian species of European importance. This designation reflects the unique mosaic of habitats across the New Forest including heathland, grassland, woodland, wetland, bog and open water together with species that its supports, notably [name], [name], and [name]. Finally, the New Forest is also listed as a Ramsar site, due to it containing areas of wetland that support relevant flora and fauna of international importance.

The available evidence indicates that, in combination with other residential development in the area, the appeal proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the designated habitats sites through recreational disturbance. Accordingly, under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 Regulations), Appropriate Assessment of the implications of the project on the protected sites is required.

Without appropriate mitigation, it cannot be confirmed that the proposed residential development would avoid harmful impacts on the integrity of the SPAs and SACs resulting from increased recreational pressure. Nonetheless, The Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020 – 2025 Supplementary Planning Document (2020), including the provision of [name] and [name] (SAMMs) explains that such impacts can be addressed when developments make a financial contribution towards the identified strategic mitigation measures.

In respect of the New Forest there is a draft New Forest Strategic Access Management and [name] (April 2025) and the Council has indicated that contributions will be secured in accordance with this strategy. However, at present I have not been informed that the draft SAMM has been formally adopted, and there is currently no mechanism available to secure the required contributions. 12.

With regards to the impact on the [name], based on the information provided, the securing of a financial contribution would be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the development. However, no such obligation has been provided with the application or the appeal. I accept that the appellant is willing to enter into an agreement, however, the only document submitted to me is only a request for the Council to prepare a Section 106 agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The completed agreement itself has not been provided. As a result, I must base my decision on the absence of a completed agreement.

For the New Forest, the situation is more complicated due to the draft nature of the SAMM. The use of a condition to secure mitigation has been suggested. However, in these circumstances I do not find that a condition would provide a sufficient degree of certainty in the securing of the appropriate mitigation. This is consistent with the conclusions reached in a recent appeal provided by the Council at Zacchaeus House1.

Given the lack of mitigation [name], Dorset Heathlands Ramsar Site, [name] and New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA and New Forest Ramsar I am unable to ascertain, as the competent authority undertaking Appropriate Assessment, that the integrity of the sites would not be adversely affected by the proposed development, with particular regard to recreational disturbance. Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal conflicts with Policy CS33 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: [name] (BLP) which, amongst other aspects, expects development to protect the integrity of designated sites.

On the plans the ground floor flat ([name]) is presented as a one-bedroom flat with a kitchen and a living room. The second floor flat ([name]) is shown as a two-bedroom flat with a kitchen/living room on the ground floor and two bedrooms and a study area on the first floor.

In terms of the [name] – [name] (NDSS) it is accepted that [name] meets the standard for a one bedroom one person dwelling. The flat also has reasonable outlook from all habitable rooms and access to daylight. There is also a garden at the property for occupants to use.

[name] has the kitchen and living area on the ground floor and the rest of the rooms on the first floor. It has a Gross Internal Area (GIA) of 63.5 m2, which would be just above the standard for a two-bedroom three person unit of a one storey dwelling but below the standard of 70m2 for a two-storey dwelling, which is relevant given the flat is set across two floors. No concerns have been raised in respect of access to light or outlook.

Policy CS41 of the BLP seeks to ensure that changes of use provide a high standard of amenity that meets the day-to-day needs of future occupiers. The Residential Design Guide offers further direction, highlighting the importance of rooms having adequate functional space, as well as appropriate outlook and natural daylight. However, neither the policy nor the guidance makes any specific reference to minimum space standards.

Planning Policy Guidance states that Decision takers should only require compliance with the NDSS where there is relevant current Local Plan policy. The Council has not adopted the NDSS into its development plan as part of Policy CS41. As such, compliance with this cannot be required and any deficiency, in comparison to the standard, can only be afforded limited weight. However, the NDSS is a material consideration, and its requirements provide a useful starting point for the assessment of this proposal, particularly as the relevant policy refers to the provision of satisfactory internal amenity space.

[name] is below the required standards for a two-storey dwelling, I have taken into consideration the layout and accommodation provided. [name] observed from my site visit the accommodation appeared to provide adequate accommodation for the occupants, for example, bedrooms were large enough to 1 APP/V1260/W/24/3354086 accommodate wardrobes and the kitchen had space for appliances as well as a small sofa and a table and chairs.

I find that while [name] is smaller than the standard required by the NDSS, given the lack of specific policy reference I find the quality of the living accommodation is acceptable in accordance with Policy CS41 of the BLP.

Overall, I conclude that the flats provide suitable living conditions for occupiers and as such there is no conflict with Policy CS41 of the BLP or guidance within the [name] in respect of these matters.

The proposal results in the loss of a two-storey single dwelling and the creation of a one-bedroom and a two-bedroom property. Policy CS19 seeks to protect small family dwellings from subdivision in order to retain a balanced housing stock.

A small family dwelling is cited as being a dwelling with a gross external area (GEA) of below 140m2. The Council reference the original dwelling as having a floor area of around 102m2 and therefore would have been a small family dwelling. This makes a small but meaningful contribution to keeping a more balanced mix of housing, which supports the aims of the policy. It is recognised that this would be replaced by smaller dwellings. However, as referenced above in terms of size these are at the lower end and therefore would potentially meet a different need to that which the house provided.

Accordingly, I conclude that the scheme would result in the loss of a small family dwellinghouse contrary to Policy CS19 of the [name] which seeks to retain a balanced stock of housing across the plan area.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites, with a housing land supply quoted as 2.1 years. On this basis, the approach set out in paragraph 11d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) applies. However, the Framework is clear that in such circumstances, permission should be granted unless the application of its policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed; and this includes, as per footnote 7, ‘habitats sites’. Given my findings in relation to the [name] and New Forest SPA, SACs and Ramsar, there is a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is therefore not applicable in this instance.

[name] have found that the living conditions of future occupiers of the development would be adequate the proposal would result in the loss of a small family dwelling contrary to policy. I have also been unable to ascertain that it would not adversely affect the integrity of [name] and New Forest habitats sites. I accept that it may be possible to resolve this matter, however, without a signed legal agreement I am unable to confirm this. Therefore, based on the submitted evidence and my findings that the proposal would conflict with various local plan policies, this leads me to conclude that it conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The development would provide an additional unit of housing in a location which is very well located in respect of access to services, facilities, and sustainable transport options. It makes more efficient use of land and reuses an existing building. There would also be benefits in respect of local spending and increase in Council tax revenue.

In considering the conflict with Policy CS19 there is a balance to be struck between the need to retain small family homes and to provide more homes in total. Given the lack of housing supply in the area this would weigh in favour of the proposal even with the desire to protect smaller dwelling houses.

Even if I were to accept that the need for an additional dwelling outweighed the harm associated with the loss of a smaller unit, along with any other benefits of the scheme, these considerations would not overcome the harm identified in relation to the protected European sites, which alone provides a strong reason for refusal. Consequently, irrespective of the Council’s housing land supply position, the proposal cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in paragraph 11 of the Framework.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.