Appeal 6001633

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - • the integrity of [name], notably the New Forest Special Protection Area and the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area and Ramsar site, in regard to recreation use and nutrients; and • highway safety, with specific regard to parking provision.

The appeal site lies within the zones of influence for both the New Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Solent and [name]. Both are designated for their qualifying bird species. New residential development within these areas have been shown to increase recreational pressure, resulting in disturbance to those species. Although one dwelling alone may not be significant, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations) require in-combination effects to be considered. Consequently, any net increase in dwellings within these zone gives rise to a likely significant effect on their integrity.

To address such impacts, the Council has adopted the New Forest SPA Mitigation – Interim Framework (2014), which provides the framework and financial mechanism for mitigating recreational impacts on the New Forest SPA. The Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy, approved in 2018, establishes a strategic mitigation package funded by developer contributions to address recreational disturbance affecting the Solent and [name].

There is existing evidence of elevated levels of nitrogen and phosphorous within the water environment across the Solent, with eutrophication already recorded at several designated sites. The Council set out that an [name] for [name], commissioned by the Partnership for [name] (PUSH) authorities, examined how planned development could be delivered in the context of legislative and national policy requirements relating to European sites and wider biodiversity. This work confirmed that there remains uncertainty over whether new housing development could proceed without measures to ensure that it does not contribute to a net increase in nutrients entering these designated sites.

Consequently, Natural England advise that proposals which result in a net increase in dwellings must submit a nitrogen budget to demonstrate that the development would not give rise to a likely significant effect on European designated sites due to increased wastewater from new housing. The Solent and [name]/Ramsar are one of the European designated sites sensitive to nutrient enrichment. Therefore, any additional nitrogen load must be fully mitigated to ensure compliance with the Habitats Regulations, with nutrient neutrality achieved via nitrogen budgets and legally secured nitrate credits.

The appellant submitted a nitrogen budget calculator1, which identified a total nitrogen load of 0.91 kg/TN/yr. The appellant indicated that they would mitigate this by purchasing nitrate credits from either [address] or the Eastleigh Borough Council strategic scheme, with the mitigation to be secured through a Section 106 agreement.

As any net increase in residential development within these zones is known to give rise to such likely significant effects, both the New Forest SPA and the Solent and [name] and Ramsar site trigger the need for an Appropriate Assessment. In accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Regulations, I, as the competent authority, am required to carry out an Appropriate Assessment where a proposal is likely to have significant effects on a European site, in regard to recreational use and nutrient loading. That assessment can only conclude that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of these habitat sites if the necessary strategic mitigation is secured with certainty.

The appellant states that the necessary strategic mitigation would be secured by means of a legal agreement. However, no completed legal agreement has been provided to secure the required contributions or credits towards either the New Forest SPA Mitigation or the [name], nor has any agreement been submitted to secure the necessary nitrate credits. Without such a mechanism in place, I cannot be satisfied that the necessary mitigation would be delivered. In the absence of secured mitigation, the Appropriate Assessment cannot lawfully be concluded in a manner that demonstrates, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the integrity of the [name] would be maintained. Therefore, the legal test under the Habitats Regulations is not met. 1

Accordingly, in the absence of a completed legal agreement securing (i) the required contribution to the [name]; (ii) the required contribution under the New Forest SPA Mitigation; and (iii) nitrate credits to achieve nutrient neutrality, I cannot conclude, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the development would avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of [name], notably the Solent and [name]/Ramsar and the New Forest SPA, in regard to recreation use and nutrients.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies COM2 and E5 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan DPD (adopted 2016) (the Local Plan), the New Forest SPA Mitigation – Interim Framework, the [name], and the requirements of the Habitat Regulations. Together, these set out the strategic framework and financial mechanisms for mitigating recreational impacts on internationally designated nature conservation sites, ensure that development appropriately addresses its effects on such protected areas, and require certainty, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that a proposal would not adversely affect the integrity of an SPA. Within the boundaries of the settlements, the principle of development will be permitted provided that it accords with the other relevant policies of the Local Plan.

The appeal site relates to an end-of-terrace property at [site address] . The existing dwelling benefits from a single on-site parking space in the form of a garage. Although there is a hard-surfaced area immediately in front of the garage, it does not appear to be of sufficient depth to function as a compliant parking space. This is supported by the consultation response from Hampshire County Council, the relevant highway authority, who confirm that ‘the existing parking space in front of the garage/car port would appear to be too short for a large car’ and thus ‘the existing dwelling only has one usable parking space’.

I observed that most dwellings along [address] benefit from at least one off-street parking space, arranged either parallel or perpendicular to the carriageway. Consequently, on-street parking typically serves visitors or additional vehicles. A small number of properties toward the [address] end of the street rely solely on on-street parking. During my visit, on-street parking was concentrated along the southern side of the road, opposite the appeal site, with several spaces available. I also noted, as stated by the appellant, that there are no on-street parking restrictions or formal parking bays along [address].

[name] of the Local Plan sets out the parking standards for the Borough. For the proposal, the standards require two on-site parking spaces for the existing dwelling and a further two spaces for the proposed dwelling. Parking for the existing dwelling would be provided to the frontage by means of one parallel parking space, while the proposed dwelling would be served by two tandem parking spaces. Although the Council accepts that all of the spaces meet the minimum size requirements set out in the Local Plan, it raises concern that the number of spaces in regard to the existing dwelling would fall short of the required provision by one space.

At the time of my visit, while recognising this represents only a snapshot, there was clear on-street capacity available on the opposite side of the carriageway. In this context, any overspill parking generated by the existing dwelling could be accommodated along [address] without resulting in obstruction, congestion, or inconvenience to highway users. The appellant has also highlighted the [name] (PIA) data for the past five years, which records no injury-related incidents on [address] or at its junctions. This indicates that the current highway and parking arrangements are operating safely and efficiently. The Council has not disputed this. The submitted swept-path tracking further demonstrates that a vehicle could enter and exit the proposed parking space from either direction.

During my visit, on-street parking occurred exclusively along the opposite side of the carriageway, and the road is not of sufficient width to accommodate parking on both sides without obstructing vehicle movement. As such, the notional ability to park outside the appeal site, despite the absence of formal restrictions, is theoretical. Accordingly, the introduction of an additional dropped kerb at the appeal site would not materially reduce the level of available on-street parking. It would not displace any existing on-street parking and would not result in an exacerbation of existing parking stress on roads within the vicinity of the site, as alleged by the Council.

Taking the above into account, I am not persuaded by the Council’s assertion that the proposal would lead to inconsiderate parking, obstruct visibility, or impede traffic flow. On-street capacity was clearly available during my visit with parking taking place only on the opposite side of the carriageway. Double yellow lines are already in place at the junction with [address] to prevent visibility at this location being obstructed, and the absence of any injury-related incidents over the past five years further indicates that the highway operates safely and without significant visibility constraints. Accordingly, there is no compelling evidence that the development would result in harm to highway safety.

Consequently, the identified parking shortfall would not give rise to unacceptable harm to highway safety or the efficient operation of the road. The existing dwelling benefits from only a single parking space, and this position would remain unchanged. As such, the status quo in terms of on-street parking demand from the existing property would be maintained, and no adverse highway safety effects would arise. I therefore find that providing only one parking space to serve the existing dwelling would not harm highway safety in these circumstances.

The Council’s reference to a previous officer visit, as well as reference to an image taken from [address] from May 2018, where parking demand appeared high offers only a snapshot and does not demonstrate a consistent shortage. Furthermore, no technical evidence such as parking surveys have been provided to demonstrate that the area operates under sustained parking stress, nor that the appeal scheme would materially alter existing conditions. On this basis, the claim that the proposal would lead to the loss of usable parking spaces or increased pressure on parking in the vicinity is not substantiated.

I am also mindful that the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios. I consider that any impact on highway safety would fall well short of what could be considered as severe.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal has justified parking below the parking standards. Accordingly, the proposal would not harm highway safety, with specific regard to parking provision. It would be in accordance with Policy T2 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that parking provisions should be well designed and appropriately located so as to be convenient to users. Whilst this policy requires proposals to provide parking in accordance with the standards set out in [name], it also recognises that residential parking provisions below the standards will be considered where evidence justifies variations from the standards.

The 2024 Framework introduced a revised methodology for calculating local housing need figures. This change has resulted in an increase in the housing requirement for the Test Valley Borough. The Council has confirmed that it currently has a supply of 2.76 years. Consequently, the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

I have found that the proposal would fail to ensure that adverse effects on the integrity of both the New Forest SPA and the Solent and [name]/Ramsar would be avoided, in regard to recreational use and nutrient loading. Therefore, whilst the proposal would make a contribution towards the housing land supply, and would also provide other social and economic benefits, this is a situation in terms of paragraph 11 (d) (i) of the Framework, where the presumption in favour of sustainable development is not engaged because the application of the policies in the Framework that protect European habitat sites2 provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, the appeal scheme would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Overall, although acceptable in regard to highway safety, I have identified that there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole, as the proposal would fail to ensure that adverse effects on the integrity of both the New Forest SPA and the Solent and [name]/Ramsar site would be avoided. Accordingly, it would not comply with local and national planning policy which seek to protect habitat sites. Considered in total, and having regard to all other matters raised, the material considerations referred to above do not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.