Appeal 6001464

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the appeal site is a suitable location for a new dwelling, with particular regard to the development plan’s spatial strategy for new housing; and • Whether the proposal can mitigate against the impact upon the Solent Special Protection Area (SPA).

The appeal site lies to the south of [address] within open countryside west of the village of Hambledon and within the South Downs National Park. The site is occupied by a detached bungalow which is set back from the road. This was formerly an agricultural worker dwelling prior to the removal of the agricultural tie condition in 2015.

The building the subject of the appeal scheme comprises a steel portal framed agricultural barn which dates from the 1970s. The evidence before me is that it has been redundant since the 1980s. It lies to the rear of, and shares vehicular access with, the dwelling.

The appeal site also includes a parcel of agricultural land to the east of these buildings, which is separated from them by a public footpath and has its own separate vehicular access. [address] lies to the east of the appeal site and there is also agricultural land to the south and west of the site, with farmland and an equestrian stud business on the opposite side of the road.

The spatial strategy for the South Downs National Park is set out in Policy SD25 of the South Downs Local Plan 2014 – 2033 (2 July 2019) (the Local Plan). This supports the principle of development within the designated settlements.

Although scattered dwellings exist along [site address] , there is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies outside of the nearest designated settlements. The village of Hambledon lies approximately 0.5 miles to the east, and the larger village of Denmead is around 2.3 miles south of the site.

Policy SD25 allows, exceptionally, development outside of settlement boundaries where it complies with relevant policies in the Local Plan, responds to the context of the relevant broad area or river corridor, and accords with any of the criteria a) to d) listed within this policy.

The proposal does not meet criterion a) (allocated for development or safeguarded for the use proposed), b) (has an essential need for a countryside location), or c) (community infrastructure with a proven need that cannot be met elsewhere).

Accordingly, criterion d) is the most relevant to the appeal scheme and allows for an appropriate reuse of a previously developed site, excepting residential gardens, where it conserves and enhances the special qualities of the National Park.

In considering whether the proposal is an ‘appropriate reuse’ for the purposes of Policy SD25, Local Plan Policy SD41 is particularly relevant. This policy permits the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings outside of the defined settlement boundaries to alternative uses. This is subject to meeting all of the listed criteria, a) to g).

Having regard to the officer [name] and the first reason for refusal, the National Park Authority (NPA) raises concerns specifically in respect of criteria a), d) and g).

Criterion a) requires the location to be sufficiently well-related to existing infrastructure, amenities and services. The appeal site is not isolated from built development, having regard to the existence of other residential and agricultural properties which are sporadically sited along [site address] . However, the nearest community facilities and services are in the village of Hambledon which is separated from the appeal site by intervening open countryside and is accessed via the rural road of [site address]

Hambledon contains a number of facilities which a include a primary school, church, public house, village hall, doctors’ surgery, several small shops and coffee shops. The edge of the village is approximately 800m away from the appeal site and there is a coffee shop located at the junction of [site address] and [address]. However, I saw from my site visit, that most of the aforesaid key community facilities and services are located some distance further along [address], approximately 1.5km from the appeal site. This exceeds the CIHT 1 widely accepted convenient walking distance to facilities and services of 10 minutes (circa. 800m).

I acknowledge that accessibility of sites in rural areas differs from that which are reasonable for urban areas. However, I consider that it would be reasonable to 1 Planning for Walking Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation (April 2015) expect key facilities and services to be located within a 10-minute walking zone from the appeal site.

In addition to distance from the appeal site, I have also considered the convenience, safety and attractiveness of alternative means of travel to access facilities and services. Walking or cycling from the appeal site to the edge of the village by road would necessitate travelling along the narrow country lane of [site address] which has no pedestrian footways and is unlit with sharp bends in the road and involves traversing a steep hill. Moreover, this stretch of the lane is edged for the most part by a banked roadside verge that due to its slope and surface is not conducive to traversing over by pedestrians or providing a convenient opportunity to easily step away from the road carriageway to avoid approaching vehicular traffic.

From my observations of the characteristics of the stretch of road within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site and leading up to the edge of the village, I find that the above factors, together with the distance from the appeal site to the main group of facilities and services within the settlement centre, would act as a deterrent to pedestrians and cyclists, particularly the elderly and infirm and those with young children, and especially during inclement weather and hours of darkness.

[name] is served by bus services linking it to Waterlooville, with the closest bus stops being sited approximately 900m from the appeal site, I consider that the use of such would be deterred by the aforesaid inconvenient walking route to the village.

Having regard to the above, I consider that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling, which given its size and single storey design, could reasonably potentially include the elderly, children and those with mobility issues, would be significantly physically restricted from accessing the existing facilities and services and public transport network at Hambledon.

I accept that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and it is reasonable to assume that future occupiers of the development would use private car transport as a means of access to a few facilities and services. However, in this instance it is reasonably likely that there would be a heavy dependence upon private car use to access the most basic of services and their day-to-day travel for services, community facilities and employment both in the nearby settlement and further afield. As such, I find that the appeal site is not a suitable location for residential development having particular regard to its accessibility to facilities and services, so that the appeal scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of criterion a) of Local Plan Policy SD41.

The evidence before me is that the barn which is proposed to be converted has been redundant for many years. However, planning permission was recently granted in May 20222 for a general-purpose agricultural building for storage of farm machinery and equipment and seasonal livestock accommodation on land within the appeal site. Moreover, I saw during my site visit that this building is currently under construction. 2 LPA ref SDNP/21/05331/FUL granted 12 May 2022

In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, such as details of how the use of the new barn relates to the existing and proposed uses within the appeal site as whole, I am not persuaded that the objective of Local Plan Policy SD41 criterion d) has been met, that being that the residential conversion has not directly led to a need for another agricultural or forestry building on the holding.

Criterion g) of Policy SD41 requires the building to be converted into the most appropriate viable use when considered as part of a hierarchy whereby essential rural workers dwellings, agriculture/forestry diversification for employment or tourism related uses and affordable housing are higher up the cascade than market housing.

The supporting text to this policy at paragraph 7.210 is clear that it is only where all other potential uses have been assessed sequentially and are shown to be unviable or unachievable, or in conflict with other Local Plan policies, that the suitability of conversion to open market housing may be considered. This acknowledges that residential conversions are more likely than other uses to require a high degree of change and intervention to the detriment of agricultural character including conflicts arising from the desire for a more domestic character and introduction of outdoor domestic paraphernalia by residential occupiers.

Whilst the appellant states that the conversion of the building to an open market dwelling is the only viable option, this assertion is not supported by substantive detailed evidence such as commercial agent reports in respect of the alleged oversupply of commercial premises within the local rural area, the demand for employment or tourism accommodation, professional reports/detailed analysis of the construction costs compared to the rental or sales incomes achieved from employment or tourism uses or the viability of affordable housing provision.

In the absence of detailed and robust evidence to support the appellant’s assertions, I am unable to conclude that the proposed market dwelling is the only viable option for the existing building as stated by the appellant. Neither am I persuaded based on the evidence before me that the other uses listed above market housing on the Policy SD41 hierarchy would necessarily give rise to a greater impact upon the landscape character of the National Park.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for a new dwelling, having particular regard to the development plan’s spatial strategy for new housing as set out in Local Plan Policies SD1, SD25 and SD41. These policies, amongst other aims, seek to ensure that development is suitably located having regard to the NPA’s adopted spatial pattern of development and that it protects open countryside within the South Downs National Park from inappropriate development.

These policies are generally consistent with the sustainable development aims of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework), including directing new development to the most accessible locations and promoting a prosperous rural economy as well as giving great weight to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and scenic beauty of National Parks.

The appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph 84 c) of the Framework which allows for the development of isolated homes in the countryside comprising the re-use of redundant or disused buildings where there is an enhancement to the immediate setting of the development. Moreover, the NPA has not refused the application because of harm to the character and appearance of the area.

However, notwithstanding this, I am not persuaded, based on the scheme details before me, which include the replacement of part of the existing public footpath with a long domestic access drive with associated residential related traffic, the creation of a new hard surfaced parking area to the rear of the building, 2m high boundary fencing which is more appropriate to an urban built-up location and the use of composite timber cladding for the building which is not an appropriate material within the context of this National Park location, that the resulting incursion of a what would appear to be an obvious domestic use into the landscaped setting of the site would result in an enhancement to this part of the National Park countryside. In coming to this view, I have also taken account of a lack of details in respect of any proposed landscape enhancements to the setting of the building.

Also, the appellant has referred me to an allowed appeal3 for a new dwelling located more than a convenient walking and cycling distance from the nearest local services and facilities. However, I find the circumstances of that appeal, in which the building in question already benefitted from a lawful planning use as a residential annexe whose amount of living accommodation would not be altered by the proposal and whose occupants already relied upon their own private transport to access facilities and services so that the number of trips would be unlikely to be significantly increased, to be notably different to those of the current appeal. As such, that decision does not alter my conclusions in respect of this main issue.

The site lies within the catchment area of the [name] which is in an unfavourable condition due to eutrophication as a result of excessive nutrients which is harming the important habitat and bird feeding grounds contrary to the stated conservation aims of the SPA.

The NPA’s second reason for refusal relates to the failure of the development to mitigate against potential harm to the [name] due to additional nutrient loading as a result of waste-water discharge from the development without achieving nutrient neutrality or adequate mitigation.

The appellant considers that this matter has been addressed through the submission of a site-specific Nutrient Assessment and [name] and the proposed replacement of the existing septic tank with a new [name] to deal with wastewater from both the existing and proposed dwellings.

Within the context of this appeal, the responsibility for assessing the effects of the proposal on the European designated site falls to me as the competent authority. However, as the first main issue provides a clear reason for dismissing the appeal, there is no need for me to consider this matter further, since any findings on this issue would not change the appeal outcome.

The Framework defines the three dimensions of sustainable development as performing economic, social and environmental objectives. The proposal would 3 [name]/J1915/W/21/3273513 contribute to the NPA’s housing supply. Also, the scheme could be built out quickly having regard to Paragraph 73 of the Framework. There would also be economic benefits because of the construction of the development and economic and social benefits associated with the subsequent occupation of the dwelling. Environmental benefits would also result from the required 10% net increase in biodiversity net gain (BNG).

However, these benefits would be modest having regard to the small scale of the development. Moreover, the evidence before me is that the NPA benefits from a 5- year housing land supply.

I find that, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, the proposal would not be a sustainable form of development. The conflict with the development plan is not outweighed by other considerations including the Framework.

It is common ground between the main parties that the appeal scheme would result in no harm in respect of matters including neighbouring living conditions, highway safety and parking, trees, ecology and biodiversity net gain (BNG) and flood risk. The absence of harms is a neutral factor which does not weigh in favour or against the development.

Whilst the Framework encourages the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and requires the NPA to approach decisions in a positive and creative way, these matters are not unqualified

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole, and while the matters that I refer to above would weigh in favour of the proposal, they are not sufficient to indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.