Appeal 6001882

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would represent good design and its effects on the character and appearance of the area; • the effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and [address], with particular regard to privacy and outlook; • whether the scheme would provide adequate open space for future occupiers; • whether the proposal would provide adequate parking for future occupiers; • the effects on the adjacent tree; and • the effects on the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area ([name]).

The appeal site is situated on the corner of [address] East and [address] West which lies within a predominantly residential area. The area is broadly characterised by its wide, tree-lined and generously verged highways, with mixed flatted developments and dwellings set in generous plots set back from the highway.

Currently occupying the site is an aged, single storey commercial building which fronts onto [address] East and also has a blank side elevation directly adjoining the footway edge of [address] West. The building, currently used for repairing cars and related activities, occupies almost all of the triangularly shaped, compact site. The building has a hipped, oversized roof covered in metal sheeting with dark coloured painted brick walls. It has functional openings and fenestration. Overall, it is a detractor from the prevailing character of the area but not an overly intrusive presence within the streetscene given its scale and relatively muted external material palette.

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing building and construct a three storey, broadly triangularly shaped terrace of three dwellings, each of which would contain 3 bedrooms. The terrace would have a flat roof and its upper floor would be set in from the external walls to attempt to minimise its overall scale and bulk.

There would be diminutive areas at the rear of each property to serve as outdoor space and for the storage of bins and cycles. The proposal would not achieve the required 30sqm of useable private outdoor garden area under policy DE3 of the Rushmoor Local Plan (adopted 2019) (Local Plan). Though the mitigating factors promoted include the private terraces for each dwelling at second floor level and the site’s close proximity to open spaces in the surrounding area, the appellant’s evidence accepts that there would be an under provision of outdoor garden space to serve each dwelling relative to the policy requirement.

In terms of the scale and design of the proposed terrace, it would be significantly larger than the existing building it would replace on the site and, particularly owing to the way it would be built up to both street edges, would result in the site appearing overdeveloped and cramped. [name] accept that the site is unlike others in the area, largely owing to its modest scale and triangular shape, the design response proposed would not be fitting for the area. The terrace would not read well as three separate dwellings but would appear more as a contemporary flatted block, but one at odds with those more traditionally designed blocks in the surrounding area. Though a previous appeal decision may have suggested that a traditional form of development would not be appropriate on the area for a scheme of 5 flats, the contemporary scheme proposed would not appear any more appropriate. My view is that the common theme between the schemes is more likely to be an issue of scale, layout and massing relative to the plot size and prominence of the site more than rigidly whether the proposed development would be of a more traditional or contemporary design.

The nearby ‘airfield buildings’ from which it is suggested the terrace would take reference are not so close or so obvious from the appeal site that they provide an appropriate context with which to assimilate the appeal scheme. Additionally, though the existing building on the appeal site is a detracting feature, the appeal proposal would replace it with an alternative, larger, brash and uncharacteristic building. The quality of the streetscene would not be improved by the proposal before me.

For the foregoing reasons, the proposal would not represent good design and would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to, in particular, policy DE1 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development is a high quality of design that respects the character and appearance of the local area and demonstrates that the wider context has been considered through analysis of surrounding uses, scale, massing, layout, landscape, materials and topography.

[address] is a three storey building adjacent to the site which has windows in a side elevation looking over the existing building on the appeal site. The original floor plans of the building suggest that the kitchen windows look towards the site and that the kitchens lead from the main living room in which there is another separate larger window. The ground floor side windows in the side elevation of [address] do not really have an outlook beyond the existing site boundary wall.

The appeal proposal would introduce a three storey development which would be within around 3.5 metres of the side elevation of [address]. Owing to the scale and layout of the development, the proposed staggered rear elevation with terraces at second floor level would also be in close proximity of the side and front elevation of [address].

The proposal would not include any first floor or second floor windows on the elevation directly facing [address]. Although not specifically detailed on the plans, it is also suggested that the terrace serving House 1 would have a privacy screen at 1.8 metres which would prevent any views towards [address] although a planning condition could secure this aspect. However, the combination of the rear window at the first floor level of House [address] on the second floor level of House 2 would still allow views at close range to the side windows in [address]. Whilst these would be more offset than directly aligned views, it would result in an uncomfortable relationship between the respective dwellings. Furthermore, by virtue of the close proximity of the proposal to [address], the outlook from the side elevation windows above ground floor level would be materially harmed by the proposal.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to loss of privacy and outlook contrary to policy DE1 of the Local Plan which seeks to avoid harm to adjacent users by reason of loss of light, privacy or outlook.

The Council raises the issue that owing to the compact nature of the site, there would be no onsite public open space provision beyond the already undersized garden and terrace areas combined. Policy DE6 of the Local Plan requires new residential development to make an appropriate on-site provision for open space in accordance with the Council's standards, unless the development is of a size and/or in a location where a financial contribution for part or all of the open space requirement is considered more appropriate.

The financial contribution sought by the Council towards the increased demand by new residents is around £8,690.00 and would be put towards either landscaping, furniture, infrastructure and pitch improvements and/or playground renewal at [name] or [address] [name].

The appellant’s draft planning obligation seeks to provide this financial contribution in full, though it has not been executed. Therefore, in the absence of such, the proposal would fail to provide adequate outdoor space for future occupiers, upon which greater reliance would be placed by the development given its under provision of private outdoor space on the site itself. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy DE6 of the Local Plan.

[address] East and [address] West are wide streets and do not appear to have any evident parking restrictions. [address] West is also a cul-de-sac. No spaces are specifically dedicated to the existing business. Any available spaces are technically within highway land and the proposal would not provide any spaces either.

Policy IN2 of the Rushmoor Local Plan indicates that off-road parking should be provided in accordance with the standards and principles as set out in the Car and Cycle Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (2024) ([name]). The Parking SPD specifies that for three bedroom properties, two off-road parking spaces should be provided for each dwelling and for a proposal of three dwellings, a further visitor space should be provided1, i.e. a total requirement for 7 spaces.

Though some submitted images appear to show a number of vehicles parked outside of the appeal site, it is unclear that these are specifically attributable to the business operated therefrom. The evidence does not precisely quantify the pattern of demand for on-street parking that the business generates, though it is unlikely that 6 vehicles would be regularly parked on the street overnight as would be the case for the proposed dwellings. The pictures do however indicate that the location of the appeal site on a corner of two streets results in the area appearing cluttered, with even a relatively modest number of vehicles outside the site.

The appellant’s submission does include photographs of various streets within around 100m of the appeal site taken on the 23 and 26 September 2025. It is suggested that these photographic records align with the ‘[name] which focusses on parking capacity during school term time and in the midweek early hours which are reported to be when the demand times for on-street parking are at their highest.

Notwithstanding the absence of any quantification of the spaces or calculation of the parking stress that the proposal would add, I do accept that the photos show a relatively high number of available parking spaces on the respective dates and at the times shown. I also accept that the business has inevitably placed some parking stress on the area over the duration that it has operated. Therefore, taking these aspects together, it is an unavoidable fact that the proposal would not provide adequate parking for future occupiers under the terms of Local Plan IN2 and the [name]. However, this conflict a reduced degree of weight in the context of the existing levels of on street parking generated by the business and apparent availability of on street and unrestricted parking within the local area.

The area has a verdant character with street trees being relatively commonplace. The native, deciduous tree adjacent to the site is particularly prominent. As such, it contributes to the pleasant aesthetic and amenity value of the area.

The tree’s canopy already overhangs the roof of the building on the appeal site which is much lower than the building proposed by the appeal scheme. The extent to which the tree would need to have its crown altered to accommodate the proposal and maintained as such thereafter would be likely to have an effect on its long-term survival.

Notwithstanding the findings of the submitted Daylight and [name] which suggests that all dwellings would receive adequate levels of natural light, the close 1 Total of 1/5 space per dwelling (x3), rounded to the nearest whole number proximity of the tree to the balcony, outdoor space and windows of proposed [name] 3 would result in a pressure for future occupiers to undertake further tree works to reduce its effects and perceived threat to safety.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal proposal conflicts with Policy DE1 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that existing landscape features are included within the overall design of the scheme from an early stage.

The TBH SPA is designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) for its network of heathland sites which support internationally important numbers of bird species: [name], Woodlarks and Nightjars. These birds’ nest on or near the ground and as a result they are very susceptible to predation, particularly by cats, rats and crows, and to disturbance from informal recreational use, especially walking and dog walking. Any proposal which by reason of its proximity of the SPA, within a ‘Zone of Influence’, that may result in additional recreational disturbance is likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA.

The conservation objectives for the SPA are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name], by maintaining or restoring the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features; the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features; the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely; the population of each of the qualifying features, and, the distribution of the qualifying features within the site. I have had regard to these objectives in undertaking my duties in accordance with the Habitats Regulations.

The appeal site is located within the zone of influence (ZoI) of the [name] and the proposal is not directly connected with or necessary for the management of the protected site. However, the proposal, given its scale, nature and distance within the ZoI of the protected site, would be likely to have significant effects either alone, or in combination with other projects. Therefore, the effects of the proposal cannot be screened out and in adopting a precautionary approach, the development would give rise to likely significant effects on the [name], such as to require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations.

In order to meet the requirements of Policy NE1 and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance and [name] (2024) (AMS), it is necessary for appellants to secure an allocation of [name] mitigation capacity from either the Council’s Strategic Alternative Natural Greenspace schemes (SANGs), or from another acceptable source and to secure both it and the financial contributions towards [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) by way of planning obligation.

Whilst a draft S106 agreement has been submitted which seeks to provide SANG and SAMM mitigation, its terms have not been agreed and nor has it been completed. Whilst the appellant indicates a lack of co-operation on the part of the Council in concluding this matter, no alternative measures appear to have been explored and appropriately secured such as to make the scheme acceptable in this particular regard.

As such, and as competent authority, I do not have the requisite scientific certainty that the necessary mitigation measures are available and that they have been appropriately secured. The imposition of a condition to require a legal agreement would not be appropriate given the absence of such certainty and given that the nature of the development is not so complex such as to justify the exceptional circumstances for the imposition of such a condition. Consequently, the proposal would adversely affect the integrity of the [name] contrary to its conservation objectives, in conflict with the Habitats Regulations, policy NE1 of the Local Plan, saved policy NRM6 of the South East Plan (saved 2009) and the AMS. These policies seek to secure adequate measures to avoid or mitigate any potential adverse effects on the [name].

The appellant advances that the proposal would be a benefit to neighbouring occupiers through the cessation of unneighbourly commercial activities at the site. Whilst the representations of local residents do not appear to suggest that the existing business causes any material harm, a residential use would be more broadly compatible and I consider this a benefit of limited weight in the overall balance.

I have noted the references to the previous appeal decision on the site and that given the passage of time since, the merits of an alternative proposal should be considered anew. I have considered the merits of the specific proposal before me and have given limited weight to such an aged appeal decision.

The appellant’s evidence refers to the Council’s heavy reliance on ‘windfall’ sites as part of its overall housing land supply, which is undisputedly at least at the minimum five year level with associated buffer as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council accept that this position may be relatively marginal and have applied the provisions of Framework paragraph 11 d) in reaching its decision; a point to which I return below. The key point is that the appeal scheme would be a windfall housing scheme involving the redevelopment of a brownfield site that would make a small but valuable contribution to the housing supply, irrespective of the current supply position.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and the nearby notable tree; would fail to provide adequate open space for future occupiers; would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and fail to secure the necessary mitigation to avoid harm to the [name]. Notwithstanding the reduced weight I attach to the shortfall in parking provision, taken collectively, the harms bring the scheme into conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

An aspect not in dispute is that the appeal site is in a highly accessible and sustainable location for new residential development which clearly weighs in favour of allowing the development.

The contribution of three dwellings as part of a windfall, brownfield redevelopment scheme are clear factors weighing in favour of the scheme. The economic effects of closing the existing business would be likely offset by a temporary construction phase economic boost and longer-term economic contributions to the area by future residents. There would be a degree of benefit and protection to neighbouring occupiers through introduction of a residential use in place of an industrial use.

However, these benefits and other points advanced in favour of the scheme do not outweigh the identified harms such as to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

Notwithstanding the undisputed position of there being at least an adequate five year supply of housing land, I have also considered the provisions of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework. In this case, the failure to avoid harm to the integrity of the [name] would amount to a strong reason for refusal and even if it had not, the harms from the scheme would still have significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits in any event.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.