Appeal 6001167

The appeal is allowed and permission in principle is granted for 3 bedroom Dwellling with access from existing farm Shop and Dwelling access from the [site address] at [address], [site address] , Whitchurch [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00993/PIP.

The appeal is dismissed

As set out above there are two appeals on this site. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

The proposals are for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages. Appeal Decisions 6001167 + 6001169

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted1. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeals accordingly.

The Council’s evidence refers to a Draft Local Plan (with site allocations and policies map). However, I have not been provided with details of the precise status of draft local plan or whether there are any unresolved objections to them. As such, I have only afforded the draft local plan limited weight in the determination of these appeals.

Since the Council’s determination of the applications, the North Wessex Downs National Landscape An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2025-2030 has been adopted, I have had regard to this during the consideration of the appeals.

The main issues in respect of appeals A and B are whether the sites are suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development.

The appeal site is located outside of any settlement policy boundary and is therefore designated as countryside. Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) [name] 2016 (LP) sets out a spatial strategy for the Local Authority to meet its full housing need over the Plan period. The strategy is principally based upon the development of allocated Greenfield sites and the redevelopment of land in the towns and villages. Development in the countryside is generally restricted.

Policy SS6 of the LP relates to development in the countryside and provides a set criteria for development within the countryside to be permitted. This states that development in the countryside will only be permitted if, amongst other things, the site is on previously developed land. The parties disagree as to whether the appeal site would constitute previously developed land.

The definition of previously developed land includes gardens in an area that is not built-up and there is no dispute that the appeal site is not located within a built-up area. The appeal site has the appearance of a garden that is associated with the bungalow that is located close to the appeal site. I am also mindful of the information provided by the appellant which includes historic plans and aerial images which all demonstrate that the appeal site has been used as a garden for some time. 1 Paragraph: 012 [name]: 58-[phone] Appeal Decisions 6001167 + 6001169

I note that the Council consider that the appellant has identified the appeal site as agricultural during discussions in regard to neutrality budget calculations. However, it is clear that this identification was used to best fit in the with land uses identified in the calculator and is not a reflection of the situation on site and the evidence before me. I also note the Councils concern that a previous application excluded the appeal site and that the garden use may be unlawful, however, this does not alter my view. As such, and based on the information before me, I consider the appeal site to be previously developed land.

Notwithstanding the above, in order to comply with Policy SS6 of the LP, the appeal proposal needs to i) 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. The Council have not alleged that the appeal site would be of high environmental value or that the appeal proposal would be of an inappropriate scale, I have no reason to find otherwise. As such, the consideration is whether the proposed development would result in an isolated form of development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not define isolated development, however, is has been established the [name] v SSCLG judgment2 that the word “isolated” in the phrase “isolated homes in the countryside” simply connotes a dwelling that is physically separate or remote from a settlement. Whether a proposed new dwelling is, or is not, “isolated” in this sense will be a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker in the particular circumstances of the case in hand. The City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSHCLG judgment3 endorsed this approach.

The Framework does not define what is meant by a “settlement”. The Braintree judgment confirmed that whether a group of dwellings constitutes a settlement for the purposes of the policy is a matter of fact and planning judgment for the decision-maker. It also established that a settlement does not necessarily have to have any services or public transport in order to be considered a settlement. As such, while I note that the Council’s LP sets out that new dwellings could be isolated if they are not well served by public transport (e.g. within 500 m of a bus stop or train station) or well served by services and facilities (e.g. within 1km of an SPB, which generally contains facilities such as schools, post offices, doctors surgery, etc), this generally goes beyond established caselaw.

There is no dispute that the appeal site is located outside of the nearby settlement of Whitchurch. However, the appeal site is located close to other dwellings and while their placement is sporadic with varying sized gaps, they generally form a linear pattern of housing and as such, the appeal site would form part of a meaningful cluster of dwellings and would not be physically isolated. 2 [name] v SSCLG, Greyread Ltd & Granville Developments Ltd [2018] [name] 610 3 City & Country Bramshill Limited v SSHLG and others [2021] [name] 320 Appeal Decisions 6001167 + 6001169

Whitchurch railway station is less than 1 mile away from the appeal site, and there are also several services and facilities within Whitchurch which is just over a mile from the appeal site. However, despite this short distance, walking is likely to be unattractive due to their being no footpaths, verges or lighting and [address] being subject to the national speed limit. However, the short distance could mean that cycling would be an option, and I also note there is a request bus stop within a very short walking distance to the appeal site which would enable some sustainable travel options from the appeal site.

In light of the above, the proposed development would therefore not be isolated from services and facilities, some of which could be accessed without the need for a private car thereby offering a genuine choice in transport modes. This, combined with the short distance to Whitchurch would mean that future occupiers would maintain and enhance the vitality of the settlement.

I therefore conclude that the appeal site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, the proposed land use and the amount of development. I find no conflict with Policies SS1, SS6 and CN9 of the LP and Paragraphs 84, 110, 115 and 129 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes, improve accessibility to service and support the transition to a low carbon future.

Article 5B of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended) (“The Order”) sets out that permission in principle must not be granted for development which is “habitats development”. This is defined in Article 5B(5) of the Order as including development which is likely to have a significant effect on a European site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) and is not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site. There is a specific process to deem what would constitute habitats development. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The appeal sites lie within the zone of influence of the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) being situated within the catchment of the [name]. The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other projects, the competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the project’s implications in view of the relevant site’s conservation objectives. The effects arising from the proposal need to be considered in combination with other development in the area and adopting a precautionary approach.

The qualifying features of the SPA and SAC include internationally rare bird species for which it is classified. The overriding conservation objective is to ensure that any new residential development will not have any significant adverse impact on the SPA and SAC. The SPA and SAC are in unfavourable condition due to nutrients (in this case nitrogen), where new development may have an adverse effect by contributing additional nutrients through wastewater. Appeal Decisions 6001167 + 6001169

The application was accompanied by nutrient calculations as required by Natural England which showed that the proposed development would result in an increase of 0.03kg/TN/year. The appellant has proposed to purchase 0.30kg of [name] and the provision of a wastewater package treatment plant as part of the proposed development.

PPG states that it is not possible to impose conditions at this permission in principle stage, as the terms of any permission in principle must only include the location of the site, and the type and amount of development. Given this, along with the absence of a legal agreement before me, there is no mechanism to ensure that a wastewater package treatment plant is installed and nothing to ensure credits are purchased through the Eastleigh Borough Council Nutrient Neutrality [name] at this permission in principle stage.

As such, when adopting a precautionary approach, I am not satisfied that the appeal proposal would not adversely affect the SPA and SAC. Accordingly, I cannot be certain that the integrity of the protected sites would not be harmed as a result of this proposal, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site and an absence of adequate mitigation. The proposal would constitute habitats development for the purposes of Article 5B of the Order. Accordingly, it lies outside of the remit of the permission in principle stage.

The Council have referred to other matters which include the location of the proposed development and harm to the character and appearance of the area and National Landscape. However, it would not be appropriate for me to address these matters, as permission in principle must not be granted in this instance.

The appeal site for appeal A also lies within the zone of influence of the SPA and SAC being situated within the catchment of the [name]. The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 require that, where a project is likely to have a significant effect on a European site, either alone or in combination with other projects, the competent authority must make an appropriate assessment of the project’s implications in view of the relevant site’s conservation objectives. The effects arising from the proposal need to be considered in combination with other development in the area and adopting a precautionary approach.

The qualifying features of the SPA and SAC include internationally rare bird species for which it is classified. The overriding conservation objective is to ensure that any new residential development will not have any significant adverse impact on the SPA and SAC. The SPA and SAC are in unfavourable condition due to nutrients (in this case nitrogen), where new development may have an adverse effect by contributing additional nutrients.

The application has been supported with nutrient calculations as required by Natural England which show that the developments would result in a net loss in nitrate loading. Natural England have raised no objections and agree with these conclusions. As such, with regard to appeal A, I am satisfied that there will be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the European sites. Appeal Decisions 6001167 + 6001169

The Council has referred to other appeals in an attempt to justify their case. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to the appeal decisions4 that have been provided by the Council, these all relate to appeal proposals that are located some distance away from services and facilities where it was found that there would be no other option than a private vehicle. These differ from the appeal before me, where due to the short distance to a train station and other services and facilities, the proposed developments do provide options by cycling and bus.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing, however, in regard to appeal A, as I have not found conflict with the development plan, this material consideration does not need to be considered further.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

For the above reasons, the appeal should be dismissed as it does not comply with Article 5B (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 (as amended).