Appeal 6000896

The appeal is dismissed.

As part of the appeal, the appellant submitted an updated Ecological Report1 which includes more recent local search records, replacing those previously at Appendix 4 of the [name] Appraisal2 (PEA) submitted with the planning application. The Council have confirmed that the updated records address the second reason for refusal. I see no reason to disagree with this position and, given the submission timing allowed comments to be made on the contents of the updated information, I conclude that no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account within the determination of this appeal.

Although not included as reason for refusal on the decision notice, as the appellant is seeking an exemption from providing the mandatory biodiversity net gain on the site, it is necessary for me to take this into consideration during the determination of this appeal. Comments were sought from the main parties on this issue therefore neither party would be prejudiced by this approach as a result.

Additionally, the site is located within the catchment of three [name] afforded protection under the Habitats Regulations3; Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation; Solent and Dorset Coast Special Protection Area (SPA); and the Solent and [name] (hereafter referred collectively as the Solent). The Yar Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest also lies within the Solent, immediately adjacent to the site. Therefore, it is incumbent upon me, as the competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Solent.

Consequently, the main issues are: 1 Ref: AS/AN/0423 [name]; prepared by Woodside Tree Consultancy; dated 24 June 2025 2 Ref: AS/AN/0423 [name]; prepared by Woodside Tree Consultancy; dated 8 January 2025 3 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2009 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations) • whether the site is suitable for the proposal, having regard to the local development strategy on the location of housing; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the Isle of Wight National Landscape (IoWNL); • the effect of the proposal on biodiversity; • whether the proposal would make adequate provision for affordable housing; and • whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Solent, with specific regard to recreational disturbance and nitrates.

The appeal site is located beyond the settlement boundary of the [name] and is therefore, for the purposes of the Island Plan Core Strategy ([name]) within the Wider Rural Area. In setting out the overarching approach to economic led regeneration, Policy SP1 of the [name] supports development outside of and not immediately adjacent to [name] only where a specific local need is identified. No specific need has been put forward in this case and no other locational policies have been brought to my attention which would support the proposal.

I conclude, therefore, that the site would not be suitable for the proposal, having regard to the local development strategy on the location of housing, and thereby conflicts with Policy SP1 of the [name] which seeks to direct development towards the settlements across the Island in a hierarchical approach.

Given the site’s location within the IoWNL4, in considering the proposal I have had regard to Chapter 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the area. Further, as a National Landscape, the IoWNL has the highest status of protection concerning these issues, reflecting its statutory purpose. Policy DM12 of the [name] is consistent with this approach through its support of proposals that conserve, enhance and promote the landscape interest of the island, amongst other aspects.

The special qualities of the IoWNL are underpinned by the complexity and diversity in the landscape elements and features found across the Island, with the sea having a major influence on the Island’s character. The appeal site is located close to the northern coast, on slightly elevated land above the shoreline and the flat floored valley associated with [name] to the south. Although the [name] valley is not physically linked to the Solent, with the A3054 forming a barrier between these two landscape elements, nonetheless it forms part of the undeveloped gap which separates the settlements of Bouldnor and Yarmouth. Despite the sparse positioning of trees in this gap, it forms part of the Yarmouth 4 Formerly an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) TPO5 along with the appeal site, ensuring a visual and predominantly open yet verdant connection with the sea.

The appeal site itself forms part of the garden associated with the property known as [site address] (the host). It comprises two distinct areas: the existing access, part of the driveway area and landscaped garden area immediately to the west of the host property; and a small, wooded area which forms part of the verdant settlement gap. Its elevated position provides long distance views across both the Solent and towards the gently rolling hills beyond the flat floored valley.

Due to the change in levels from the A3054 down to the rear boundary of the site and the marshlands associated with [name] beyond, the rear elevations of the existing dwellings fronting the road, including the host property, are highly visible in views from the south, in particular, public right of way Y19. The proposed dwelling would straddle the sudden drop in levels at the edge of the existing driveway, thereby providing the appearance of a two-storey dwelling when viewed from the road, with three levels, albeit offset, at the rear. While other dwellings nearby, including the host property, possess similar accommodation arrangements, the proposal would result in the introduction of built form of a bulk and scale substantially greater than the existing features on the site, including the wooden workshop/shipping container structure on the driveway.

Additionally, the prominence of the proposed dwelling in the landscape would be accentuated by its boxy design, the significant proportion of flat roofs and the amount of glazing, despite the lack of consistent architectural styles and features in the surrounding area. The alterations made in response to the previously refused scheme6 and the use of natural materials do not alter this effect, even if positive comments were made by the Council within pre-application advice. By extending the line of dwellings along the A3054, with few existing or proposed landscape features to soften it, the proposal would increase the imposing presence of the built environment on the more open landscape to the south. This would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape setting, including the IoWNL.

However, as the trees in the western part of the site are more densely positioned than those between it and the built form of Yarmouth, this wooded area provides a visual and physical barrier to the edge of Bouldnor. The siting of the proposed dwelling would not lead, therefore, to a physical or visual encroachment into the important settlement gap and the clear separation of Bouldnor and Yarmouth would remain appreciable when traveling along the A3054.

Although it would be sited beyond the existing rear building line of the host dwelling, the proposed dwelling’s closer relationship to the rear boundary would not be visually disruptive to the existing pattern of development. Moreover, the contrasting characters of the natural valley floor against the manicured garden area and domestic paraphernalia therein would be retained as currently experienced. While the proposal would increase the use of artificial lighting which, in turn, could be detrimental to the dark skies and tranquillity of the area, this could be adequately controlled by the imposition of a suitably worded condition were I to allow this appeal. 5 Area A1 of the Yarmouth Tree Preservation Order (TPO) – 15 September 1975 6 Council Ref: 23/02157/FUL; dated 12 February 2024

Nonetheless, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the IoWNL, contrary to policies SP5, DM2, DM11 and DM12 of the [name]. These, amongst other things, seek to conserve and enhance the special character of the Island’s historic and built environment. The proposal also conflicts with similar objectives and policies within the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan.

The application form indicates that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build or custom-built property and is therefore exempt from providing the mandatory 10% biodiversity net gain (BNG) set out in The Biodiversity Regulations7. The main parties have agreed that this would be secured through the imposition of two conditions, were I to allow the appeal, which would: i) limit the occupancy of the dwelling to those person or persons who had a primary input into its design and intend to live in it for at least three years; and ii) require the submission of the Council’s Proforma8, confirming the occupancy details at i), at least three months prior to first occupation.

While the Council are satisfied that these conditions represent a reasonable approach to securing a self-build property that meets the definition set out in the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015, their enforceability is uncertain. For instance, if someone other than the person building the dwelling (therefore a third party), occupies it during the first three years following completion they would be in breach of condition i). Given a condition runs with the land, not a person, any enforcement against this third party is unlikely to be reasonable. Additionally, any action the third party takes to address the breach would not achieve the condition’s planning and policy objective; namely that the dwelling is occupied by the person/s involved in its design. Furthermore, as a completed proforma does not constitute a legal obligation, any enforcement action taken against a third party in this regard would not be reasonable.

In the absence of a suitable mechanism to secure the dwelling as a self-build home, I conclude that the proposal does not meet the aforementioned BNG exemption. It would, therefore, be subject to a 10% BNG pursuant to the Biodiversity Regulations and the Environment Act 2021. As the minimum information relating to BNG, as set out in the DMPO9 is not before me, I am unable to establish whether the proposal could achieve at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value relative to the pre-development value of onsite habitat.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to biodiversity, in conflict with the Environment Act 2021, the DMPO and the Biodiversity Regulations.

Policy DM4 of the [name] requires financial contributions to be made towards affordable housing for developments of 1-9 units in rural areas. The Affordable Housing SPD10 sets out how the contribution is calculated, based on the 7 The Biodiversity Gain (Town and Country Planning)(Modifications and Amendments)(England) Regulations 2024 (Biodiversity Regulations) 8 Proforma for schemes that are self or custom build 9 Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order (DMPO) 10 Affordable Housing Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (March 2017) ([name]) value of the property at first sale/occupation. The Council will use this contribution towards the cost of the provision or improvement of affordable housing, applied on a hierarchical approach across the Island based on the site’s location. This obligation is also necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms.

As part of the application a signed and dated [name] (UU) was submitted which obligates the appellant to pay the [name], based on the sale price or a RICS11 [name], to the Council prior to the occupation of the new dwelling. These factors lead me to conclude that the obligation is related directly to the proposal, and fairly related in scale and kind to it. It, therefore, accords with the CIL Regulations and the Framework in this regard.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would make adequate provision for affordable housing, in accordance with Policy DM4 of the [name] and the [name].

The natural conservation interest of the Solent results from the varied bird species supported by the habitat, particularly during the winter months. The protection of the Solent seeks to ensure that migratory birds can feed undisturbed whilst they build up energy reserves to survive the winter before journeying back to their breeding grounds. A key issue which prevents the Solent from meeting this objective relates to additional recreational pressures placed on the area.

As the proposal would lead to an increase in the number of homes in the area, and therefore the population living nearby, it would lead to a rise in the number of people likely to access the Solent for recreational purposes. This heightens the risk of disturbance to the birds which, in turn, can lead to an increase in bird mortality or a reduction in the amount of energy an individual bird has available at the end of the winter, should it move away from the feeding ground due to human presence. It is therefore likely that the proposal, taken both in isolation and cumulatively with other projects, would have a significant adverse effect on the integrity of the Solent. Consequently, it is necessary to conduct an Appropriate Assessment concerning the effect of the proposal.

The approach to avoiding or mitigating significant effects to the Solent from an increase in recreational pressure comprises securing contributions towards the [name] (revised September 2024) (the Strategy). The Strategy was established by the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership (the Partnership), which includes the Council, Natural England, wildlife conservation bodies and other local authorities of the Solent region.

The Partnership will use the contribution to help fund the implementation of the Strategy, through five core delivery strands; Governance; Monitoring; Collaboration; Engagement; and Site-based Investment. Within each strand, as detailed within the SPD, a series of activities and priorities have been identified. From the evidence before me, I therefore conclude that the obligation sought is necessary to make the development acceptable.

The aforementioned UU submitted before the application was determined includes an obligation which requires the appellant to pay the [name] 11 Royal Institute of [name] (RICS) to the Council. The contribution is based on the number of bedrooms proposed within a new dwelling and is therefore directly related to it, and fairly related in scale and kind. As such it would accord with the CIL Regulations and the planning obligations tests set out in the Framework. Through the provision of the UU, it has also been demonstrated that, in regard to recreation, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SPA.

With regard to nitrates, the SPA is currently in an unfavourable condition due to excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphate discharging into these waters, including from residential uses. However, the evidence before me indicates that the proposal would be within the catchment of the [address] (WwTW) which outfalls into the [name], not the Solent. Therefore, subject to the imposition of a pre-commencement condition, were I to allow the appeal, securing the discharge of foul water into the WwTW, the proposal would not lead to an increase in nitrates discharging into the Solent.

I conclude, that, subject to mitigation, the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Solent with regards to recreational disturbance and nitrates, in accordance with policies SP5 and DM12 of the [name], the SPD and the Habitat Regulations insofar as they seek to protect such designated areas.

The net gain of a single dwelling would be beneficial to the local housing stock, with social and economic benefits derived from its construction and occupation. It would also be valuable in supporting the Framework’s objective of boosting the supply of housing. The incorporation of adaptable features to support the appellants would also provide a social, albeit largely private, benefit to the appellant’s family. While reference is made to the appellant’s progressive health conditions, no further details have been provided.

The contribution from the scheme towards the provision of, or improvements to, the affordable housing nearby also provides a public benefit which is supported by the Framework objective of delivering a sufficient supply of homes that meet local needs. Furthermore, the scale of the proposal means it could be delivered quickly. Environmental benefits would be derived from the installation of solar panels, the use of sedum roofs and other ecological enhancements within the site. The totality of the social, economic and environmental benefits would, nonetheless, be minor to moderate given the proposal comprises a single dwelling. My conclusion relating to the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Solent is a neutral matter.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the IoWNL, as the bulk, scale and design of the proposed dwelling would be a prominent feature in the landscape. The level of harm to the IoWNL would be moderate but nevertheless, in accordance with the Framework, attracts great weight in my decision.

In the absence of an appropriate mechanism to meet an exemption to the mandatory BNG requirements through securing a self-build dwelling, the proposal would harm biodiversity. It would be contrary to the Biodiversity Regulations and the Framework’s aim to secure measurable BNG when determining applications. Such harm is modest given the scale of the scheme.

Due to the location of the site, it conflicts with the local development strategy’s approach to directing new residential development towards the named settlements. Despite this, the site is located within easy walking distance, via well-lit pavements, of the [name] of Yarmouth and the range of services and facilities therein. Additionally, a regular daily bus service runs along the A3054. Given the general accessibility of the site, I attribute minor weight to the proposal’s conflict with the local development strategy. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with the Framework. I am aware from another appeal in the area that the latest published position12 is 3.5 years. However, this figure was determined when a previous iteration13 of the Framework was in place, based on the requirement to demonstrate either a four or five-year supply, depending upon the status of a Council’s development plan. Nonetheless, the evidence before me indicates that the Council’s Housing Delivery Test score for the three year period to 2022 sits at 66%, below the 75% threshold the Framework considers as substantially below the housing requirement.

As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out at paragraph 11d of the Framework is relevant. [name] have found that the proposal would not result in a significant effect on the integrity of the Solent, paragraph 11di is not engaged regarding this area of particular importance. However, I have found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the IoWNL to a moderate degree. In accordance with the Framework, I give this great weight in my decision. Therefore, I conclude that paragraph 11di applies and the application of Framework policies that protect areas of particular importance, such as the IoWNL, provides a strong reason for refusing the development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.