Appeal 6001008

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would provide 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;  whether the proposal would comply with local and national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding; and  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a parcel of land located to the north of [site address] , situated outside of the Settlement Policy Boundary of [address]. The site is therefore considered to be in the open countryside. However, a Certificate of Lawfulness1 confirmed that the site has lawfully been used as part of the larger private garden use of [site address] . The Dartford judgment2 clarified that gardens outside built-up areas can qualify as [name] (PDL) if they meet the definition within the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). The Council accept that the appeal site would be considered to be 1 24/00658/LDEU 2 Dartford Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Ors [2017] [name] 141 PDL. Based on the evidence before me, and my observations on site, I agree that the site falls within the Framework definition of PDL.

Policy SS6 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011-2029 (Local Plan) (adopted 2016) relates to new housing in the countryside. Criterion ‘a’ of Policy SS6 supports development for new housing on PDL provided that 3 further criteria are met. The 3 criteria supports development provided that: i) They do not result in an isolated form of development; ii) The site is not of high environmental value; and iii) The proposed use and scale of development is appropriate to the site’s context. All three criteria must be complied with.

In regard to whether the proposal would result in an isolated form of development, the Local Plan sets out that a dwelling may be considered isolated if it is not within 500 metres of public transport or more than 1 kilometre from a Settlement Policy Boundary (SPB) containing key facilities such as a school, shop, or post office. For the purposes of the Local Plan, a settlement is more than a loose cluster of houses and must include at least one service or facility. Case law provides further interpretation. In the Braintree case3, ‘isolated’ was understood to mean far away or remote. The Bramshill judgment4 confirmed that isolation is a matter of planning judgment, with the test being whether the site is remote from a settlement rather than simply detached from other dwellings.

The appeal site forms part of a small cluster of three dwellings and lies adjacent to a recently approved dwelling at Dartan House5. Accordingly, it would not be physically isolated from other built development.

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. The closest villages are [address] (approximately 1.6 km) and Headley (approximately 2.5 km), which both have limited services, noting that Headley has a school and a village shop. Consequently, the site would be considered to be in an isolated location, by virtue of it being remote from a SPB, essential services and public transport.

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, the appeal site is served by narrow, unlit lanes with no pavements and no bus routes, which would make walking or cycling unsafe and impractical. The site is located within a rural area where access to services and facilities is limited. Future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private car for day-to-day needs, including employment, education, and shopping. While the appellant proposes mitigation measures such as an electric vehicle charging point and on-site cycle storage, these do not overcome the fundamental locational shortcomings nor materially reduce the need to travel by car or address the lack of public transport and safe walking or cycling routes.

Policy CN9 seeks to ensure that development integrates with the movement network and promotes sustainable transport choices. My findings above lead me 3 Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and others [2018] [name] 610 4 City & Country Bramshill Ltd v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors [2021] [name] 32 5 Application Ref: 22/01239/FUL to conclude that the site’s location does not provide realistic opportunities for sustainable transport or accessibility to services and facilities for future occupants to reasonably carry out day-to-day activities, particularly during inclement weather, hours of darkness, or for those less physically able. Furthermore, the absence of such sustainable transport opportunities would fail to support the transition to a low-carbon future, contrary to the objectives of the Local Plan.

Accordingly, the appeal site constitutes an isolated form of development when assessed against the Local Plan definition. It lies beyond 1 kilometre from any Settlement Policy Boundary containing key facilities and lacks proximity to public transport. This degree of separation reinforces its unsuitability for new housing and results in conflict with criterion a) ‘i’ of Policy SS6 of the Local Plan.

The appellant draws my attention to the approval of [address] as a precedent on this matter. [name] acknowledge that both sites share certain characteristics, such as a rural setting and proximity to other dwellings, consistency in decision-making does not override the need to assess each proposal on its own merits against the relevant policies. Importantly, the officer’s report for [address] noted the presence of public transport, including a bus stop within walking distance of that site’s entrance. No comparable evidence has been provided for the proposal before me now. Indeed, the appellant’s final comments indicate that ‘there used to be a bus route along the road’, suggesting that public transport is no longer available. These differences are material, and the existence of a previous approval does not create an automatic presumption in favour of the proposal at [site address] . Accordingly, based on the evidence before me, the [address] decision does not alter my findings.

The appellant has also referred me to a recent appeal decision in the Borough at Blackstocks Lane6. [name] agree with the Inspector’s finding in that case that the 2024 Framework has not materially changed sustainability considerations, as alleged by the Council, I consider that the circumstances of that decision differ materially from those before me. In paragraph [address] decision, the Inspector noted that ‘the proposed dwelling would also be within close walking distance to bus stops on the A30 [address] which are close to the junction of the A30 with [address]. There would therefore be the opportunity to access both Hook and [name] with their facilities and services by means other than the private car, including both by public transport and by bicycle’. By contrast, the appeal site at [site address] is not accessible by public transport.

Furthermore, the referenced Meadow Cottage7 appeal is also materially different. From the limited evidence before me, that site appears to be much closer to a SPB (35m as opposed to 1.5km away in the current appeal). Therefore, neither the [address], the [address] nor the [address] decisions alter my findings above.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the proposed development 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 be contrary to Policies CN9, SD1, SS1 and criterion a) ‘i’ of Policy SS6 of the Local Plan, Policy HD1 of 6 APP/H1705/W/25/3368891 7 APP/H1705/W/25/3361625 the [address] with Headley Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2029 (the NP) and the objectives of the Framework.

Together, these policies set out the local strategy for housing delivery, focusing new housing development within settlement boundaries and restricting new housing in the countryside except where they would comply with certain criteria, which the proposal would fail to achieve. Development should also seek to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to services and support the transition to a low carbon future, which again the proposal would fail to achieve.

Both the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provide clarity on the application of the sequential test. Paragraph 175 of the Framework states that the sequential test should be used in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates that no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future (having regard to potential changes in flood risk).

The PPG8 states that where a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) demonstrates clearly that the proposed layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development (therefore addressing the risks identified e.g. by Environment Agency flood risk mapping), without increasing flood risk elsewhere, then the sequential test need not be applied.

A site-specific9 FRA has been submitted with the appeal, which the Council have had the opportunity to comment on. It confirms that the site lies within [name] 1, where the risk of fluvial flooding is lowest. However, the Environment Agency’s Risk of Flooding from [name] mapping (RoFSW) shows flows that the site is intersected by areas at risk of surface water flooding to the north and west of the site. While the proposed dwelling would be located entirely outside these areas at risk, the site access and part of the private garden area for the proposal falls within them.

The FRA sets out that the published RoFSW data is based on [name] levels which do not account for the presence of the ditch network in the surrounds, notably those which run along [address]. As a result, the modelled flows are artificially spread across land that naturally drains to these ditches. The ditch adjacent to the site is assessed to have sufficient capacity to contain flows up to approximately 650mm in depth, with the FRA concluding that the likelihood of the mapped extents occurring is low. An indicative flood evacuation route has also been provided10, which shows that during a flood event, future occupants would exit the site to the south along [address].

I must give weight to the Environment Agency’s RoFSW mapping data. While the extents shown may occur only when the ditch overflows, potentially resulting in shallower depths of flooding, the appellant acknowledges that site-specific RoFSW 8 Paragraph 027 ([name]: 7-027-20220825 9 [name] 2025, prepared by [name] 10 Figure 12 of the FRA flood levels and extents cannot be determined without pluvial modelling, and no such evidence has been provided. In the absence of this modelling, which would provide accurate and complete assessment of site-specific surface water flood level, I cannot conclude that the on-site ditches would adequately mitigate the identified risk. Any cost considerations associated with undertaking this modelling does not override this requirement. Accordingly, the risks identified by the Environment Agency’s RoFSW mapping would not be adequately addressed.

Furthermore, notwithstanding any potential shortcomings in the submitted FRA, I am concerned that the indicative evacuation route would still involve travelling through an area identified within the mapped flood extent. [name] acknowledge that [address] itself is largely outside the mapped extent and that the RoFSW data indicates flood depths of between 0–0.3 metres at the periphery where the evacuation route would run, the proposed route would nonetheless pass through the mapped RoFSW extent. This raises significant concerns regarding the safety of future occupants over the lifetime of the development, as having to travel through flood depths of up to 0.3 metres would not provide a reliably safe means of escape, particularly for those who are less mobile or have physical impairments.

Consequently, although paragraph 175 of the Framework advocates a proportionate approach, I am not persuaded that the FRA demonstrates that occupiers and users would remain safe from present and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development. A sequential test would therefore remain necessary.

The appellant sets out that in the [address] appeal11, the Inspector ‘allowed the dwelling without requiring a sequential test and ‘did not consider similar minor surface-water constraints a barrier’. However, based on the limited information before me, namely the appeal decision itself, surface water flood risk was not a matter in dispute in that case. There was no consideration of the issue and no discussion as to whether a sequential test was required. Accordingly, the findings of that other Inspector do not alter my conclusions above.

The appellant has also referred to the nearby dwelling at Dartan House12, which they state ‘did not require an FRA, despite RoFSW mapping affecting that site and its access’. I note that the officer’s report for that scheme does not reference any surface water flood risk. However notably, the 2024 Framework now clarifies that the sequential approach and associated tests should take account of all sources of flood risk when allocating or permitting development, including surface water, and I note that this revision occurred after the [address] decision, which was approved in August 2022. Furthermore, it is also understood from the evidence that the Environment Agency updated its surface water flood risk maps in 2025, which was again after the [address] decision. Nevertheless, the Council’s lack of objection to that proposal does not alter my findings in respect of the appeal scheme as each application must be considered on its own merits.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding from surface water. In the absence of a sequential test, it would not comply with local and national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. It would be contrary to Policy EM7 of the Local Plan, as well as with national 11 APP/H1705/W/25/3368891 12 22/01239/FUL guidance on managing flood risk as set out in the Framework and PPG. Together these seek to direct development away from areas at highest risk of flooding, seeking to manage flood risk through applying a sequential approach to development in areas of flood risk from any form of flooding.

As already noted, the site forms part of the garden associated with [site address] . It consists of maintained grassland and includes existing domestic structures. The land adjoins the private garden areas of [site address] and [address], as well as that of [address] to the north. It is contained on all boundaries by mature vegetation, giving it a clearly enclosed and domestic character. [address], which runs along the site’s western boundary, forms part of a designated Public Right of Way (PROW).

The site lies within the Ecchinswell Landscape Character Area, which, as the Council indicates, is characterised by small villages, hamlets and scattered farmsteads connected by a relatively dense network of narrow rural lanes.

Taking the above into account, although the site lies within the open countryside, it forms part of an established residential context. It is already in residential use, is enclosed on three sides by domestic curtilage, and is visually read as part of the [site address] and [address] group. While its position contributes in some measure to the area’s openness and rural character, as the Council suggests, the above characteristics mean that I did not experience the site as forming a meaningful landscape gap within [address] or the wider countryside.

The proposal would introduce a two-storey dwelling and thereby alter the appearance of the site. However, I am not persuaded that this change would necessarily equate to harm to the character and appearance of the area. Although the site lies within a rural setting, it is already in residential use and is visually enclosed by mature vegetation and adjacent curtilages. In this context, the dwelling would visually and functionally relate to the existing [site address] , [address] and [address] cluster, rather than appearing as an intrusive form of development. Consequently, the proposal would not create an incongruous addition but would instead reflect and reinforce the existing pattern of sporadic dwellings along [address].

Moreover, the presence of other dwellings in the vicinity means the site does not form part of a wholly undeveloped landscape. The proposal would represent a suitable addition within an area that already accommodates sporadic residential development. While the dwelling would introduce built form, this does not amount to an unacceptable erosion of openness or rural qualities when considered against the characteristics of the appeal site and the wider character of the area.

The sense of openness within the wider countryside around the appeal site would remain largely unaffected. Any views from [site address] and the PROW along [address] and public footpaths would be filtered by the retention of mature boundaries, as well as the topography. Whilst the dwelling would be visible above the hedgerow, it would sit within an established residential context and be seen alongside the neighbouring dwellings. Additional landscaping would further soften its appearance. Existing boundary vegetation would be retained and supplemented, ensuring that views from the PROW would remain filtered throughout the year. The dwelling’s modest height and sympathetic form and materials would further reduce its prominence. As such, any visual change would be limited and would not materially harm the wider landscape character.

Although the dwelling would occupy a central position within the appeal site, rather than adopting the more traditional arrangement of a house at the edge with garden space behind, the positioning would not conflict with the local character, which includes varied plot arrangements. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be set well back from the road and screened by existing mature hedgerows and proposed boundary treatments. The driveway would be proportionate to the needs of the dwelling and would incorporate permeable materials and landscaping to soften its appearance. These factors would assist in mitigating its visual impact and ensure that the development would not materially erode the rural character of the area. The subdivision of garden space would also retain generous plot sizes, preserving the spatial character of the area.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in material harm to the character or appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Policies EM1, EM10 and criterion a) ‘iii’ of Policy SS6 of the Local Plan, as well as Policies L1 and NE1 of the NP. Collectively, these policies seek to ensure that development is of an appropriate scale and form for its context, is sympathetic to local character and visual qualities, and conserves and enhances the natural environment. They require proposals to avoid detriment to landscape character or visual amenity and to make a positive contribution to local distinctiveness, respecting and reinforcing the landscape qualities of the Parish.

The proposal would also be in accordance with the principles within Chapters 12 and 15 of the Framework, in regard to seeking good design sympathetic to the local area, and the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

The Council’s reason for refusal also refers to the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (December 2018) (the SPD). However, I have not been directed to any specific section of the SPD with which the appeal proposal is said to conflict. The Council’s appeal statement additionally contends that the development would be at odds with the Basingstoke and Deane Landscape Character Assessment. [name] have found that the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the area, there is no basis on which to conclude conflict with either document. On the contrary, the scheme would accord with their overarching objectives, including the protection of the Borough’s landscapes and the safeguarding of the quiet, rural qualities of the Ecchinswell Landscape Character Area.

The 2024 Framework introduced a revised methodology for calculating local housing need figures. This change has resulted in an increase in the housing requirement for the Basingstoke and Deane Borough, from 828 dwellings per annum (dpa) to 1,127 dpa as of December 2024. The latest [name] Statement confirms that the Council currently has a supply of 2.9 years. Consequently, the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding from surface water and would not comply with local and national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. Therefore, whilst the proposal would make a contribution towards the housing land supply, would provide a lifetime dwelling on PDL, and would also provide other social and economic benefits, this is a situation in terms of paragraph 11 (d) (i) of the Framework, where the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged because the application of the policies in the Framework that protect areas at risk of flooding13 provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the appeal scheme would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The appellant has claimed that the Council misinterpreted the Framework regarding the tilted balance. Whilst the Council have responded, claiming that the [name] correctly applied the planning balance, any confusion on this matter does not materially affect my consideration of the planning merits of the appeal proposal. I have found that in these circumstances, the tilted balance would not be engaged.

I acknowledge the appellant’s reference to other appeal decisions14, in particular reference to the weight attributed in those cases to the absence of a five-year housing land supply and to the balance between identified harm and the benefits of the proposals. However, I find that these appeals are materially different as the tilted balance under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework was engaged. That is not the case in the current appeal, and the decision-making framework therefore differs substantially. Accordingly, the conclusions reached in those earlier appeals attract only limited weight.

Overall, although acceptable in some regards, I have identified that there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole, as the proposal would result in unacceptable risk from flooding from surface water and would not comply with local and national planning policy which seeks to steer new development away from areas at the highest risk of flooding. Neither would the proposal 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. Considered in total, and having regard to all other matters raised, the material considerations referred to above do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.