Appeal 6001329

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application and appeal forms as neither party has provided written confirmation that a revised description has been agreed.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building forming [address];  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies;  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;  whether the proposal would be at risk of flooding;  whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site comprises an open area of grassed land enclosed by hedge and tree planting. It is located immediately off the access leading to the front of [address], a [name] listed building ([name] 1303848).

[address] is a substantial detached former manor house set within landscaped grounds, with associated outbuildings and a service area to the rear. The property dates from the 18th century, with 19th-century additions. The gardens form an integral component of the original estate, contributing both to the aesthetic qualities of the setting and to the historic understanding of the house.

The large grounds extend to the south and west, and this wider landscape context encompasses the appeal site. The house and its immediate grounds are enclosed by a low wall and planting to the south, and by mature vegetation and fencing along [address]. These features reinforce the architectural character of the building and its verdant setting. Glimpsed views of the grounds and landscaping associated with [address] were available from the road leading to the access and [name] in particular at the time of my site visit. The large, undeveloped gardens to the south and west (including the appeal site) contribute significantly to the sense of isolated grandeur and the intended presence of [address].

The alignment of the access route enhances the sense of arrival at [address], guiding movement through the grounds and reinforcing the visual and functional relationship between the grounds, the house, and the open southern and western aspects of its setting. The generous, elongated form of the frontage garden further emphasises the status of [address] and supports an appreciation of the property within its relatively secluded, semi-rural setting, thereby contributing positively to its overall significance.

I have been advised by the Council that [name] mapping indicates that the appeal site has never previously been developed and this reflects what I viewed at my site visit. The historic relationship between [address], its associated gardens, and the southern approach is therefore considered to make an important contribution to the setting and significance of [address].

As a result of the subdivision of the open space and construction of an isolated two-storey dwelling to the front of [address], the proposal would detract from, and harm the visual experience and appreciation of [address], harm its isolated landscaped and semi-rural setting, gated entrance and sense of arrival.

Furthermore, the proposed development adopts a two-storey barn-style design that would sit uncomfortably within the informality and openness of the grounds. By reason of the scale of the proposed roof, number of dormer windows and solar panels, the proposal would result in a disproportionately heavy roofscape. Furthermore, the overall combination of window proportions, substantial glazed entrance, materials, and finishes contributes to a busy design that disrupts the architectural balance of the building. This would further detract from, and harm, the setting to the listed building.

The evidence from the appellant does not demonstrate how the proposed development has been designed to make a positive contribution to the setting of [address]. [name] note the distance of approximately 95m between the appeal site and [address], given the location of the appeal site at its entrance in a prominent position on an open site clearly seen in the context of the listed building and its wider setting, the distance does not result in the removal of the harm identified above to the setting and significance of the listed building.

Consequently, I find that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the setting of [address]. In this context, the scheme would give rise to less than substantial harm to the significance of these heritage assets.

By reason of the less than substantial harm being at a local level, the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum. However, it is important to note that less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against public benefits of the proposal. [name] acknowledge the proposal would add to the housing stock, address a need for [name] facilities and provide some benefits from the provision of solar panels, EV chargers and enhanced biodiversity, these benefits do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the listed building.

It follows from the above that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building forming [address]. The proposal therefore conflicts with the statutory presumption under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings. It is also contrary to Policies HE1 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 - [name] 2014 (LP). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that heritage assets are conserved and where appropriate enhanced for their historic significance and importance locally, protect the significance of all heritage assets and their settings, with the design of development of a high quality, reflecting and enhancing areas of recognised local distinctiveness.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Paragraph 142 of the Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

This is reflected in LP Policy KS3 that states the most important purposes of the Green Belt in the area are to protect the separate physical identity of individual settlements by maintaining wedges and corridors of open land between them, and to maintain an area of open land around the conurbation.

Paragraph 152 of the Framework states that ‘inappropriate development’ in the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Subject to various exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework, it further states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The appeal site lies outside of the village infill area for Longham, comprises an open grassed area of land with no adjoining significant built form other than roads and as such does not represent limited infilling in villages under Paragraph 154e) and does not meet any of the other exceptions set out in paragraph 154.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where, and subject to other criteria, the development would utilise ‘grey belt’ land. Annex 2 to the Framework defines ‘grey belt’ stating that it comprises previously developed land and/or any other land that does not strongly contribute to any of the stated Green Belt purposes. However, it goes on to state that ‘grey belt’ excludes land where the application of the policies relating to the areas or assets in footnote 7 of the Framework (other than Green Belt) would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development. [name] have found above that the proposal would harm a designated heritage asset, which is an asset in footnote 7, and given that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, the harm to the heritage asset provides a strong reason for refusing the development. As such, the site is not ‘grey belt’ and the proposal does not gain support from paragraph 155 of the Framework.

It follows from the above that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. It would therefore conflict with LP Policy KS3 and the associated provisions of the Framework.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The absence of built development is a characteristic of the Green Belt.

The proposal would introduce a structure where none presently exists. The building would occupy vertical space by reason of its associated massing and volume. Hence the building would reduce, and harm, the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt.

The Dorset Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) identifies the application site and its surrounding area as being susceptible to elevated groundwater levels. Furthermore, Environment Agency flood-risk mapping also shows a 1 in 30 likelihood of surface-water flooding along the site access, while the north-west portion of the site contains areas with 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 surface-water flood risk.

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) accompanying the planning application proposes raising finished floor levels by 400 mm above existing ground level and incorporating additional flood-resistant design measures. It confirms that the dwelling would be located outside the mapped surface-water flood-risk area and states that safe egress could be achieved with the Environment Agency advising that flooding from groundwater is unlikely in the area. It is stated that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be used where feasible. However, no detailed surface-water drainage strategy has been provided.

The FRA offers little substantive evidence that groundwater levels are sufficiently low to allow infiltration, nor does it demonstrate that alternative, viable methods of surface-water disposal exist that would avoid increasing flood risk on the site or elsewhere. Given the potential for high groundwater identified in the SFRA, and parts of the site being at risk from surface water flooding, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I cannot conclude that the proposal would be unlikely to exacerbate flood risk.

[name] have had regard to the appellant stating that a [name] (SWDS) is not required, the appellant’s SWDS statement dated October 2025 clarifies that one of the circumstances when a SWDS is required is for Minor development of less than 10 dwellings located within an area at risk of flooding, or within an area identified as having critical drainage problems or at risk from surface water flooding. The proposal is for one dwelling in an area at risk of flooding due to elevated ground water levels. As such, insufficient information has been submitted to clearly demonstrate that the proposal would not be at risk of flooding or add to flooding elsewhere.

In the absence of evidence clearly demonstrating that surface water can be managed appropriately, I agree with the Council that a condition to secure a drainage solution would not meet the tests of reasonableness. This is the case regardless of whether or not the site has flooded in the last 25 years.

In light of the above, the proposal would be at risk of flooding. As such, it is contrary to LP Policy ME6. Amongst other things, this states that all development will be required to demonstrate that flood risk does not increase as a result of the development proposed, and that options have been taken to reduce overall flood risk. For the same reasons, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 181 of the Framework that states that local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere and that the development is appropriately flood resistant and resilient.

The proposal would add to the general supply of housing, and self-build housing, but given the small scale of the proposal, I give this limited weight. Given that they are requirements of local and national planning policy and guidance, I also give limited weight to the provision of solar panels and associated battery storage, provision of parking bays with EV chargers off a safe access, landscaped garden with good sized amenity space and enhanced biodiversity, provision of suitable bin storage and to the lack of harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers.

In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not. The Act sets out the relevant protected characteristics which include disability and age. The effect of not granting planning permission may result in the appellant’s relative having to live elsewhere. My decision therefore has the potential to affect persons with one or more protected characteristics having regard to the Act.

The proposed development would allow the appellant’s relative, who has a significant disability, to live at [address] and receive 24-hour care. It would also provide suitable internal space to cater for their needs and to provide space for two carers in a location close to a range of services and facilities at a time where there is unmet need for such facilities as demonstrated in the Council’s ‘[name].

However, there is little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that the proposal is the only means of meeting their needs, particularly given the Council and appellant’s statements that there is other accommodation recently approved nearby. In light of these considerations, and in the absence of any other clear justification, I give moderate weight to the benefits associated with the personal circumstances of the appellant’s family.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, I have found above that the proposal would cause harm to flood risk and to a heritage asset. This is contrary to the provisions of Chapters 14 and 16 of the Framework. Given footnote 7 to Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework, and the harm I have identified to assets of particular importance in the form of flood risk and heritage, this provides a strong reason for refusing the development and there is no need for me to carry out the assessment in Paragraph 11. d) ii. of the Framework.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other nearby developments1 but in the absence of full details of these proposals, I cannot be sure that they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal and as such I give them little weight. Furthermore, I am required to consider the appeal on its merits.

I note that the appeal site lies within the catchment area for the New Forest Special Area of Conservation and Special Protection Area and Ramsar. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I do not need to consider the related duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 further.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is harmful by definition and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. This weighs heavily against the proposal.

The Framework also confirms that very special circumstances only exist where the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I have given moderate and limited weight to the other considerations. The proposal also results in harm to the setting and significance of a heritage asset and harm to flood risk. Having had regard to all other matters, I therefore find that the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations in this case. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal do not exist and it would conflict with the Framework.

Furthermore, having regard to the Act, the decision to dismiss the appeal is proportionate and necessary, given that the harm arising from the appeal proposal would outweigh its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with a protected characteristic, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.