Appeal 6001209

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the Council’s decision, the Winchester Local Plan 2020 – 2040 (WLP) has been adopted by Winchester City Council1. This has resulted in the policies referred to in the Council’s decision being replaced by the newly adopted policies. I have determined the appeal on the basis of the most up-to-date development plan, and the main parties have had an opportunity to comment on the implications of this change.

The main issues are: • whether or not the site is a suitable location for residential land use, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on habitat sites with reference to the [name] protected sites.

Policy H3 of the WLP identifies Curdridge as a settlement without a defined settlement boundary. It allows development and redevelopment that consists of infilling of a small site within a continuously developed road frontage where it is of a form compatible with the character of the village and it does not involve the loss of important gaps between developed areas. Policy H3 also allows development that would reinforce a settlement’s role and function, to meet a community need or 1 Adopted on 24 March 2026. to realise a community aspiration. The site is not located within a continuously developed road frontage, nor would the development serve the community, therefore it gains no support from Policy H3.

Policy SP3 of the WLP states that residential development on an unallocated site located outside settlements is only acceptable where there is an operational need for a countryside location, such as for agriculture, or where an existing building is reused for affordable housing, or it has been demonstrated that there is an exceptional need for affordable housing, traveller accommodation or agricultural dwellings. There is no evidence to suggest that the dwelling would fulfil one of these purposes, therefore the development gains no support from Policy SP3.

Consequently, I conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for residential land use, having regard to its conflict with the spatial strategy of the development plan, specifically WLP policies H3 and SP3.

[site address] has a mix of different sized residential properties. In the area of the appeal site, they are loosely dispersed along the road between fields lined with mature trees and hedgerows. The properties are most often positioned moderately back from the road, within large grounds.

The appeal proposal would replace an existing agricultural barn with a new dwelling. Whilst the appellant describes the barn as being within a cluster of existing development, in my view, at approximately 70m from the neighbouring properties and 150m from the highway, it is noticeably divorced from the existing development along [site address] .

[name] accept that the combination of its deep position into the site and falling topography would prevent views of the dwelling from [site address] it would nevertheless have intrinsically poor design as a large dwelling with an uncharacteristic, extended curtilage, at odds with the established pattern of development along this stretch of the road, which is concentrated nearer the highway.

I acknowledge that the development would be constructed using locally distinctive materials in a style similar to ‘Oakwood’. However, these features would not overcome the incongruity of its position relative to the existing development.

Accordingly, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would therefore be contrary to policies D1 and NE14 of the WLP. These policies, amongst other matters, require new development to make a positive contribution to the area by responding to the site’s local context and rural character, in terms of its design, scale and layout.

The appeal site is located within 5.6km of the [name] protected sites – the Chichester and [name]/Ramsar, the Solent and [name]/Ramsar and the [name]/Ramsar and the [name]. These are habitats recognised under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) (as amended) as being of European and national importance primarily in relation to their populations of overwintering waders and wildfowl.

The Habitat Regulations require that, for development to be permitted, it must be demonstrated beyond all reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal will not have a likely significant effect on these habitat sites, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. At the local level, Policy NE1 of the WLP seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the integrity of designations of international and national importance, and if impacts are unavoidable, necessary mitigation measures are provided.

During the appeal process, the appellant has provided a signed [name] (UU) pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in which the appellant covenants to pay the ‘[name] Charge’ and purchase the required capacity from Eastleigh Borough Council’s Nitrate Scheme. The contribution to the [name] would mitigate recreational disturbance associated with the dwelling’s occupants visiting the Solent’s designated sites by helping to fund bird avoidance measures including visitor management and bird refuge projects, education initiatives and new/enhanced greenspaces. The contribution to the [name] would achieve nutrient neutrality for the dwelling by offsetting its nutrient load against Council-owned land, changed from nitrogen-producing agricultural use to wetlands or woodlands. The Council has confirmed that the appellant’s UU provides an appropriate mechanism to secure the [name] charge and [name] which would ensure that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the Solent’s designated sites. However, as the UU before me is not dated, it is not the complete legal agreement necessary to secure these contributions.

Since, I have other substantive concerns regarding the appeal proposal, which I have set out in my reasoning above, I have not returned to the appellant to request a signed and dated UU, as this would not change the outcome of my decision overall. Similarly, I have not found it necessary to consult Natural England under Regulation 63(3) of the Habitat Regulations or to complete an Appropriate Assessment. However, in the absence of the mitigation measures that would have been secured by a properly dated UU, the proposal would likely adversely affect the integrity of the protected sites, and therefore fails to comply with Policy NE1 of the WLP.

There is a prior approval, granted on 12 July 20242 (‘the prior approval’), for the conversion of the barn to a two-bedroom dwelling under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order. This would convert the existing barn as is, so would have the same external dimensions of approximately 79sqms with a maximum height of approximately 5.5 metres. The appellant has submitted details to confirm that a local builder could deliver the Class Q conversion by December 2026. There is therefore a strong likelihood of the appellant implementing this development if the appeal scheme is dismissed and the prior approval is therefore a realistic fallback position. I shall consider the fallback position in more detail in my planning balance below.

My attention has been drawn to a recent planning permission for a two-bedroom dwelling to the rear of [address] in Curdridge3 where it is suggested that a 2 Application Reference 24/01028/PNACOU 3 Application Reference 23/01822/FUL similar fallback to the appeal applied. I note however, that the Officer’s Assessment for that scheme classed the development as a small dwelling within the countryside. I also note from the plans that the relationship of the proposal with surrounding development is materially different to this case. Accordingly, the circumstances are not directly comparable with those which apply in this appeal. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the appeal proposal on the basis of the evidence before me.

I have found that the proposal would not be a suitable location for residential land use and that it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and fails to comply with the development plan when considered as a whole. However other considerations exist in the form of the appellant’s prior approval fallback position. In terms of the suitability of the location for residential land use, as the prior approval fallback and the appeal proposal would be in the same location, the spatial location of the residential development is a neutral consideration in the planning balance. However, in my opinion, the implementation of the fallback scheme would be preferable to the appeal proposal in terms of its impact on the area’s character and appearance. This is because there would be no change to the building in terms of its scale and there would be only minor changes to its appearance. Consequently, it would largely retain its rural/agricultural feel, and despite its associated residential paraphernalia and activity, it would remain legible as such.

The Council has confirmed that there is a shortfall in self-build site provision. Consequently, it is failing to meet its statutory duty under The Self-Build and [name] 2015 Act (as amended) in relation to the provision of [name] and [name] (SBCH). However, the UU which has been submitted with the appeal does not provide a clause to secure the dwelling as a [name], therefore, I attribute limited weight to this factor. The delivery of one new house would, nevertheless, contribute to the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. However, because only one home is proposed, the benefit is limited, therefore I attribute moderate weight to this factor.

There would also be economic benefits arising from the construction of the dwelling, including the creation of local employment and associated expenditure during the build phase, as well as longer term expenditure in the local economy and environmental enhancements. However, because only one home is proposed, the benefit is limited, therefore I find it has moderate weight.

The benefits that the proposal would bring do not outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the development plan policies outlined. Accordingly, they do not justify my determining the development other than in accordance with the adopted development plan.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR