Appeal 6001501

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:  whether the proposed development would be appropriately located having regard to the Council’s development plan policies and access to services and facilities,  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape,  the effect of the proposed development on the settings of a nearby listed building and a non-designated heritage asset,  the effect of the proposal on the integrity of European sites, with particular regard to nutrient neutrality,  flood risk with regard to surface water,  whether an appropriate mix of dwellings would be provided, and  whether adequate provision would be made for affordable housing.

The appeal site is located outside of any settlement boundary and is therefore designated as countryside as per Policy SS1 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) [name] 2016 (LP). Policy SS6 of the LP concerns new housing in the countryside and sets out a set criteria for housing to be supported. The criterion most relevant to the appeal proposal is e) which relates to small scale1 residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need.

The appellant has not provided information with the appeal that suggests the proposed dwellings would meet an identified need. As such, there would be conflict with criterion e) and the proposed development would not meet any of the other criteria of Policy SS6 of the LP.

Policy P1 of the [site address] Parish Neighbourhood Plan – 2016-2029 (NP) supports residential development on sites of redundant agricultural buildings but this also requires that the development meets a locally agreed housing need. As such, the proposed development would not meet the criteria outlined within Policy P1 of the NP.

The Council consider that the proposed development would result in isolated dwellings. I note the Council’s reasoning behind this; however, the appeal site is located close to a cluster of dwellings nearby and would therefore not be physically isolated as the proposed dwellings would contribute to this cluster of dwellings.

Notwithstanding the above, and while I recognise that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, the proposed development would be almost entirely reliant on the use of a private car to access services and facilities. The proposed development includes cycle storage, but there is very little evidence to suggest that services and facilities are within a reasonable distance from the appeal site to encourage cycling.

Furthermore, while electric charging points are included which could encourage the use of zero-emission vehicles, this attracts very little weight as a benefit as electric charging points are a building regulation requirement. Furthermore, the provision of a charging point does not guarantee future users would have this type of vehicle.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be appropriately located in terms of the Council’s development plan policies and access to services and facilities. It would be contrary to Policies SD1, SS1, SS6 and CN9 of the LP, Policy P1 of the NP and Paragraph 83 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure the development of residential proposals of a scale and type that meet a locally agreed need and promote transport choice which would provide a genuine alternative to the car. 1 Identified within the LP as being four dwellings or fewer (net)

The appeal site is a large parcel of land which consists of three large, portal framed agricultural buildings which are surrounded by courtyards that are predominantly hardstanding. The appeal site sits at a lower level than the surrounding area, with the wider area being mostly, vast and open fields with some sizable dwellings also being nearby.

The appeal site is located within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape). Paragraph 187 of the Framework seeks to ensure that planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes. Paragraph 189 requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

The North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 (Management Plan) sets out key issues which have the potential to have significant influences on the National Landscape's special qualities. Amongst other things, these include the change of use of land to domestic garden use and the loss of rural character through suburbanising influences from new development (new fencing, lighting, signage, parking areas, paved footpaths, loss of native hedgerows and creation of new garden areas).

The Management Plan identifies some of the National Landscapes key characteristics which include scattered farmsteads and mixed fields and arable production. The appeal sites functional use and agricultural appearance contribute to the scattered farmsteads and the surrounding area, which is mostly vast and open fields also provides a positive contribution to the National Landscape.

The proposed development would remove the existing agricultural buildings within the site and replace these with residential dwellings which would be of a reduced scale through their overall height and bulk. The appellant considers that the agricultural buildings within the site have an incongruous appearance, however, I consider that they have a functional appearance which is in keeping with the appeal site and wider area. These buildings would be replaced with dwellings which would have the layout of a small housing estate, dominated by the roads within the site, driveways and suburban front gardens which would be out of keeping with the layout of other dwellings within the area.

Development has taken place next to the appeal site; however, this scheme has a courtyard layout which is generally in keeping with the rural character and appearance of the area. Other dwellings within the wider area tend to be large dwellings that are located adjacent to roads and occupy significant plots which the proposed dwellings would be contrary to as a result of the layout.

The lower level of the appeal site, combined with landscaping could limit the prominence of the proposed development. However, in the context of the predominantly open surroundings and change from the current agricultural appearance would mean that the dwellings would appear prominent and suburban in appearance. The overall amount of built form may be reduced, however, the access road, driveways, front and rear gardens proposed as part of the scheme would have a suburban appearance which would further highlight the change.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. It would be contrary to Policies SS6, EM1, EM10 and CN3 of the LP, Policies P5 and P7 of the NP and guidance contained within the Management Plan and Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document December 2018. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that proposals are sympathetic to the character and visual quality of the area concerned and respect, enhance and not be detrimental to the character or visual amenity of the landscape likely to be affected.

The Council have identified a set of buildings adjacent to the application site as a non-designated heritage asset, which is not disputed by the appellant. In this regard the barns have recently been converted into dwellings, but the courtyard layout and use of materials maintain the historical use that would have been associated with the farmhouse opposite. Therefore, these buildings have a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions such that they should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset.

[name] is [name] listed and is a large dwelling. Its significance is derived from its large size and spacious context which highlights the building as the primary building within the hamlet which is served by surrounding structures, cottages and barns. The appearance of the building as well as the surrounding area has the typical layout of a historic farmstead which has generally been retained.

Given the above, I find that the setting of the building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with its roadside location and spacious surrounding which allows for extensive view and an appreciation of the historic farmstead layout.

The appeal site is part of the wider farmstead and the demolition of the buildings and their replacement with dwellings would erode this farmstead layout. I note development has taken place near to the appeal site, however, this largely relates to the conversion of existing buildings and therefore the farmstead layout has been retained which differs from the removal proposed in the scheme before me. I also acknowledge that the appeal site mostly contains modern agricultural buildings, however, it still shows the evolution of the farmstead over time, and the distance to [name] does not alter this.

The proposed development would be designed to reflect the barn conversions nearby, using similar materials and form. However, despite this, the proposed development would still be seen as a small housing development, with a suburban layout that would erode the historic farmstead layout.

The proposed development would therefore cause harm to the settings of the listed building and non-designated heritage asset and would cause harm to their significance.

The site lies 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.

The appeal scheme comprises four new dwellings which would increase the number of residents and in turn, could lead to an increase in nutrient loading from nitrates. Given the unfavourable status of the SPA and SAC, and the likely increases in nutrient loading, the appeal scheme is likely to have a significant effect on the aforementioned species and habitats both alone, and in combination with other development.

Natural England’s (NE) nutrient neutrality methodology covers all types of overnight accommodation and enables a nutrient budget to be calculated for all development that would result in a net increase in population served by a wastewater system. The application was accompanied by a [name] Statement2 which concluded that the development would achieve nutrient neutrality and will provide an additional 45.81 kg of nitrogen credits per year. However, the calculation was based on a bespoke farmyard methodology. Notably, NE raised concerns during the application that this methodology was not agreed.

Excessive levels of nutrients can cause the rapid growth of certain plants and algae through the process of eutrophication. This can displace species that are either important in their own right or which act as sources of food and shelter for other species. This disrupts key ecological processes which generally leads to a loss of biodiversity. Dense algal mats can impair waterbird foraging and high concentrations of nutrients in water can impact sensitive fish, epifauna and infauna communities, adversely affecting the availability and suitability of bird breeding, rearing, feeding and roosting habitats. Given the conservation objectives, without adequate mitigation, a net increase in nutrient loads arising from the development would adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and SAC. 2 [name]: [address] Barn, Egbury, Hampshire. Date: December 2024. [name]: NN - 278

The appellant has suggested that a Grampian condition could be used to secure credits prior to the commencement of development. However, I must be satisfied at the point of decision that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and SAC. On the basis of the methodology used, which is not agreed by [name] cannot be sure whether there would be increase in nutrient loading from nitrates and the extent of any mitigation that might be required, if any. On this basis, I do not consider that a condition would meet the tests outlined in Planning Practice Guidance with regard to precision.

As the competent authority in this case, I must be able to rule out all reasonable scientific doubt that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and SAC. Given the above concerns in relation to the methodology used and the inadequacy of a Grampian style condition, and the high level of statutory protection afforded to the SPA and SAC, I am not satisfied that adverse effects on the integrity of the SPA and SAC would be avoided.

Consequently, I cannot conclude that the appeal scheme would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites, with particular regard to nutrient neutrality. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy EM4 of the LP and Policy P5 of the NP, which amongst other things, seek to ensure that there will be no adverse impact on the integrity of designated and proposed European designated sites.

The appeal site is identified as being at a low to high risk of surface water flooding, with the appeal sites access being identified as being at a high risk. Policy EM7 of the LP relates to managing flood risk and states that the sequential approach to development, as set out in national guidance, will be applied across the borough, taking into account all other sources of flooding as contained within the council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA). Surface water flooding is identified as a source of flood risk.

Paragraph 175 of the Framework states 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 application was accompanied by a flood risk assessment (FRA) that demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding on site or to neighbouring areas. However, the Council consider that it has not been demonstrated how the site layout and design has responded to the identified flood risk and as such, the sequential test should be applied.

Planning Practice Guidance3 advises that in applying paragraph 175 of the Framework, a proportionate approach should be taken. Where a site-specific flood risk assessment demonstrates clearly that the proposed layout, design, and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk for the lifetime of the development (therefore addressing the risks identified e.g. by Environment Agency flood risk mapping), without increasing flood risk elsewhere, then the sequential test need not be applied.

I note the Council’s concerns in relation to the proposed development, specifically in regard to the layout and design of the proposal. However, the FRA is clear in that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding on site or to neighbouring areas and in reaching this view, the proposed layout and design would have been taken into account to result in the proposed mitigation measures.

I therefore consider that the proposed development would not result in an increased risk of flooding. I find no conflict with Policy EM7 of the LP, Policy P5 of the NP and Paragraphs 170 and 175 of the Framework. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development is supported by a FRA and should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

Policy CN3 of the LP relates to housing mix for market housing and amongst other things, seeks to insure a range of house type and size to address local requirements. Policy P3 of the NP seeks to ensure that the mix of any individual development should be predominantly two- and three-bedroom units. The Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning [name] 2018 ([name]) provides further guidance that development should focus on a mix of two- and three-bedroom dwellings with homes with four bedrooms of more comprising no more than 30% of market homes within the development.

The proposed development contains two four-bedroom dwellings and would therefore comprise 50% of the proposed development. I acknowledge the small scale of the proposed development and that a two bedroom and three-bedroom dwelling is proposed, however this does not override the conflict I have outlined.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not provide an appropriate mix of dwellings. It would be contrary to Policy CN3 of the LP. Policy P3 of the NP and guidance contained within the [name]. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that an appropriate mix of dwellings is provided to address local requirements.

Policy CN1 of the LP requires 40% affordable housing on all market housing sites. The appellant proposed to offer one of the plots as an affordable unit, however, no mechanism to secure this was provided with the application.

A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) has been submitted with the appeal, but it is incomplete and as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not found it necessary to seek a completed UU in regard to this matter. 3 Paragraph: 027 [name]: 7-[phone]

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not secure adequate provision for affordable housing. It would be contrary to policy CN1 of the LP, Paragraph 65 of the Framework and guidance contained within the [name] and Basingstoke and Deane Planning Obligations for Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document March 2018. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure the provision of affordable housing.

The appellant has referred to another appeal 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 decision4 referred to, this site is located within a short cycling distance to a train station and would therefore allow some alternative means of transport which differs from the appeal before me which is reliant on a private car.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Given the scale of the proposed development, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This balance will be referred to as the heritage balance.

A second balance (the planning balance) is found in section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which says development should be in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 4 APP/H1705/W/25/3360866

The Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework. The Council is only able to demonstrate a 2.94-year supply which represents a substantial undersupply. The proposed development of four units would make small contribution to addressing this undersupply and is therefore a benefit that attracts significant weight. Which, taking a balanced approach would outweigh the limited heritage harm. I therefore find no conflict with Policy EM11 of the LP and guidance contained within the Council’s Heritage Supplementary Planning Document March 2019. Amongst other things, these seek to conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

Moving on to the planning balance, Paragraph 11d) of the Framework states that where the policies which are most important for determining the proposal are out-of-date (including situations where the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a necessary housing land supply) permission should be granted unless (i) the application of policies in the Framework provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed or (ii) the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

I have not been able to conclude that the appeal scheme would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of European sites, with particular regard to nutrient neutrality which would provide a strong reason for refusing the proposed development and as such, Paragraph 11d (i) of the Framework therefore would apply. This means that paragraph 11d (ii). of the Framework is not engaged and the proposed development would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

I therefore find that none of the other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, indicate that this appeal decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.