Appeal 6001171

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address in the banner heading above reflects that used on the original planning application form, albeit I have removed further unnecessary description of the site that was included.

The main issues are: - the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; - whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to the local development strategy and in particular its access to facilities and services; - whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to flood risk - the effect of the proposed development on highway safety; and - whether the proposed development could suitably secure bio-diversity net gain

The appeal site comprises a broadly rectangular field parcel set within a clearly rural and expansive landscape. Access is taken from a bridleway, and the site’s frontage is largely screened by mature vegetation, with the remaining boundaries defined by low, paddock-style fencing.

While there are some dwellings and agricultural buildings in the vicinity, these are separated from the appeal site by large areas of open land and are generally dispersed resulting in a loose, low-density and informal pattern of development. Meanwhile, the character of the surrounding area is strongly influenced by agricultural and equestrian land uses, with open fields and paddocks providing visual separation between buildings and reinforcing a spacious, verdant and distinctly rural character. Indeed, despite recent works that have taken place on the appeal site in connection with another permission, the site still visually reads as a largely open and undeveloped part of the countryside and makes a positive contribution to this rural setting.

Whilst the design of the proposed development seeks to take inspiration from built form in the surrounding area, the proposed erection of substantial buildings accommodating three dwellings, together with associated hardstanding, domestic gardens and paraphernalia, would fundamentally change the rural character of the site.

Public views of the proposed development would be relatively localised, including from the adjacent bridleway. Nonetheless, the appeal scheme would introduce an extensive, harsh and urbanising influence that would erode the rural character of the area. I do not consider that this harm could be suitably mitigated through landscaping, whilst vegetation should not be relied upon to screen unacceptable development given its long-term retention cannot be guaranteed.

I have only limited details of the previously approved permission for stables, a barn and a riding area at the appeal site. While that permission may remain extant, it is not directly comparable to the proposed residential development. Equestrian uses are characteristic of the countryside and are more commonly anticipated in such locations. On the available evidence, the previous permission would also be likely to involve development of a smaller scale and a markedly different character.

Bringing the above together, I find that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011- 2029 (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan), and Policies L1 and NE1 of the [site address] with Headley Neighbourhood Plan 2022 – 2029 (Made 2022) (the Neighbourhood Plan). Collectively these policies seek to secure development that is well designed, responds positively to its surroundings, and is sympathetic to the landscape character of the area.

Local Plan Policy SS1 establishes the Council’s spatial strategy for housing delivery. The policy generally directs new housing to locations within existing settlement policy boundaries (SPB) or on sites allocated within the development plan. The policy does allow for residential developments to be permitted outside of defined SPB, but only where it would comply with exception criteria established elsewhere in the Local Plan.

Despite the presence of neighbouring residential properties, the appeal site is situated in a rural setting, a considerable distance outside of any defined SPB. In planning policy terms, it is within the open countryside, as defined under the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policy SS6 identifies a limited set of exceptions whereby new housing development in the countryside would be supported. Of relevance to the appeal proposal are criterion (a) that allows for development on previously developed land, subject to further specified criteria; and criterion (e) that permits small scale residential proposals of a scale and type to meet a locally agreed need, subject to further specified criteria.

Even if the appeal site is previously developed land, given my findings in respect of the proposal’s harm to the character and appearance of the area, I do not consider the appeal scheme to benefit from the exception outlined at SS6(a).

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, which is a matter that I will return to as part of my planning balance below. However, the exception under Policy SS6(e) is specific in that it relates to a locally agreed need for dwellings, as opposed to general housing needs across the authority area. The policy’s supporting text further sets out the expectations for demonstrating the local need for certain scale and types of homes. No robust evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the proposal would satisfy an identified local need, as such, it does not meet the exception at SS6(e).

Additionally, the proposal has not been demonstrated to accord with any of the other exceptions for new dwellings in the countryside outlined under Policy SS6 or SS1.

Furthermore, any future occupants of the proposed dwellings are likely to have travel requirements to access facilities and services. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, services and facilities that would sustain day-to-day living are located a significant distance from the appeal site. The site is also not well served by nearby public transport options.

Roads within the nearby vicinity are rural in character being predominantly unlit and enclosed by boundary hedging, without separate footpath provision, and limited surveillance. Whilst there are also bridleways/public rights of ways nearby to the site the distances involved, together with the context of the surrounding highway and footpath network, is likely to deter most future residents from walking or cycling to access facilities or services. Moreso, in periods of bad weather or darkness. Consequently, sustainable methods of travel are unlikely to be routinely used, with future occupants likely to be highly reliant on the private car. This is the least sustainable means of transport and would further undermine the Council’s spatial strategy.

The Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, I find the site’s context would not provide realistic opportunity for future residents to utilise sustainable means of transport. Regardless of whether or not the site is in an isolated location having regard to nearby built form, it remains that the appeal site lacks suitable access to facilities and services, including public transport options. The provision of electric vehicle charging points within the site, would not overcome the dependency on the use of private motor vehicles.

The appeal site therefore is not a suitable location for housing having regard to the local development strategy and in particular given its poor access to local facilities and services. As such the proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policies SS1, SS6 and CN9. It is also contrary to Policy HD1 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Together amongst other matters, these policies set out the Council’s spatial strategy for development and seek for new development to minimise the need to travel, promote opportunities for sustainable transport modes and improve accessibility to services.

The Council’s decision notice also refers to Local Plan Policy SD1, which relates to a presumption in favour of sustainable development and closely reflects Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whether the proposal complies with Policy SD1 will form part of my final planning balance.

Although the appeal site is located entirely within [name] 1, the only vehicular access along [name] is at high risk of surface water flooding (1 in 30 annual exceedance probability), according to the Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning. This presents a risk that future occupiers of the proposed development could be cut off during flood events. The proposal would also introduce a more vulnerable use of the land, together with increased activity compared to previously permitted development at the site.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that, when assessing the safety implications of flood risk, consideration should be given to matters including the safety of people within and around a development, the ability to safely access, exit or evacuate a building during flood events, and the impact of flooding on essential services.

National policy also embeds the sequential test, which seeks to direct development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. The PPG explains that the sequential approach is the most effective means of managing flood risk, as it reduces reliance on measures such as flood defences, warning systems and property-level resilience.

The Framework further confirms 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 burden of demonstrating the acceptability of the proposal lies with the appellant. While some anecdotal information has been provided regarding the limited nature of past flooding along the access route, this is not supported by robust or verifiable evidence. In any case, past events do not necessarily reflect the nature or severity of future flood risk.

Given the site and policy context, and in the absence of a robust, site-specific flood risk assessment addressing matters such as whether the proposed development is likely to be affected by current or future flooding, if it will increase flood risk elsewhere, and potential measures to deal with such risks, I am not satisfied that the appeal site is suitable for the proposed development in flood risk terms. Furthermore, the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the sequential test is either not applicable or would be satisfied.

Although other properties in the vicinity may also be subject to flood risk, this does not justify further development that could potentially exacerbate those risks. I have also been provided with very limited information regarding other nearby approvals, including their planning histories, whether flood risk was identified at the time of permission, or whether site-specific flood risk assessments were undertaken. My conclusion in relation to this main issue therefore does not turn on this matter.

Similarly, the absence of an objection from the Local Lead Flood Authority does not alter my above findings, particularly as there is also no evidence before me to demonstrate they have found the proposal acceptable.

Bringing the above together, and in the absence of adequate supporting evidence, I cannot conclude that the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to flood risk. The proposal therefore conflicts with Local Plan Policy EM7 and Neighbourhood Plan Policy HD4 which together seek to manage flood risk. This includes through steering vulnerable development away from areas affected by flooding and considering problems of surface water on roads, lanes and paths.

The appeal site lies off a bridleway that enables vehicular access to a small number of residential properties and equestrian uses. The bridleway is rural in character, largely consisting of a single-track, unmetalled road with passing places, enclosed by mature hedgerows. Beyond the appeal site, vehicular use ceases after a relatively short distance. In this context, traffic along the access road is light and, based on the submitted evidence and my own observations, vehicle speeds are likely to be low.

The site benefits from an existing vehicular access, although visibility is currently constrained by mature boundary vegetation. The appeal proposal would intensify the use of the site and result in an increased level of traffic along the access road.

The local highway authority has indicated that the appellant’s submitted junction visibility splays of 2 x 22m and 2m x 23m are commensurate with surveyed vehicle speed data, such that they would be suitable to serve the proposed development.

Although the submitted visibility splay drawings lack a high level of detail, I am satisfied that the required splays can be achieved. Their provision and ongoing maintenance could be secured by condition. This would necessitate the removal or management of a notable extent of boundary hedgerow. While the appellant indicates that such management already occurs, and notwithstanding any wider landscape considerations, I am satisfied that, in highway safety terms, securing the splays by condition would avoid harm.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not result in an adverse effect on highway safety. As such, it accords with Local Plan Policies CN9, and EM10 and Neighbourhood Plan Policies TTP1 and TTP3. Together these policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure development proposals are safe and are only permitted providing there is no adverse impact on road safety, the road network or existing public rights of way.

Policy EM1, relating to landscape, has also been referenced on the Council’s decision notice but I do not find it directly applicable to this main issue.

The appeal scheme is required to deliver bio-diversity net gains (BNG), in line with the requirements of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The submitted evidence indicates that >10% net gains could be delivered through the delivery of a combination of on-site measures. This would be largely secured through a sizeable area of the site being used specifically for habitat creation/enhancement, which is significant in area relative to the size of the development. As such, I consider the level of onsite BNG to be significant.

The use of a legal agreement, as opposed to a planning condition, may be preferable for the securing of significant on-site BNG. However, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) does not preclude the use of a planning condition for such purposes. Additionally, guidance from DEFRA1 sets out that “For significant on-site gains, developers must have a legal agreement or planning condition. If developers use a planning condition, this is separate to the condition that requires them to achieve 10% BNG” (my emphasis added).

I have not been presented with a suitably worded condition that would appropriately secure BNG in the long-term. Given that I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, I have not requested or suggested a draft condition to main parties. However, from the guidance of the PPG and DEFRA, I am content that were I to approve the development significant on-site BNG could still be appropriately secured via the use of a planning condition.

Accordingly, on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal could suitably secure bio-diversity net gain. I therefore find no conflict with Local Plan Policy EM4 that promotes biodiversity and nature conservation.

My attention has been drawn to other housing developments that have been granted planning permission in the surrounding area. I do not have sufficient information before me to establish the full circumstances that led to those developments being accepted. As such, I cannot draw suitable comparisons with the appeal proposal, which has been determined on its own merits, and with regard to the available evidence and my observations of the site and surroundings.

There would be various socio-economic benefits associated with the delivery and subsequent occupation of dwellings in an authority area whereby there is a shortage of housing land supply. There would also be benefits to bio-diversity associated with the proposal’s delivery of BNG. Given the scale and nature of the appeal proposal, such benefits would though be modest.

Compliance with development plan policies in respect of matters such as highway safety or the living conditions of residents are neutral matters in the planning balance. 1

Through being contrary with development plan policies that set out the spatial strategy for new development, as well as policies that seek to protect the natural environment, including by avoiding development in areas of flood risk, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The Council acknowledges that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, as such, Paragraph 11d of the Framework is engaged.

I have set out above why I consider the appeal scheme would be inappropriate having regard to flood risk. The application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance therefore provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

In any case, whilst the proposal would align with the relevant aims of the Framework in respect of boosting the supply of homes, use of previously developed land, and supporting bio-diversity net gain, the benefits associated with three dwellings would remain modest. Meanwhile, the Framework sets an expectation that development should be directed to sustainable locations and well designed and sympathetic to local character. These are matters to which I give significant weight. As such, regardless of the issue of flood risk, I still find the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply, whilst the appeal scheme also conflicts with Local Plan Policy SD1.

Bringing the above together, I find the proposal to be contrary to the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.