Appeal 6001958

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal application was refused for five reasons. The fourth reason relating to visibility splays duplicates the third reason for refusal. In any event, the Council confirmed in its Statement that this particular issue had been satisfactorily addressed through the appeal submission and that the third and fourth reasons would no longer be defended. I find no reason to reach an alternative view in this regard.

In view of the above, the remaining issues in the appeal are: • whether the location of the development would accord with development plan policies in terms of access to facilities and minimising car dependency; • the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effects of the proposal on the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation.

The appeal site is formed from a paddock to the south of and belonging to the host dwelling, Walden, which is situated in a rural position off [site address] . The site lies outside of the settlement policy boundary (SPB) for Medstead as defined by the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (2014) (JCS) and Medstead and Four Marks Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2016) (MFMNP). As such, the site is in the countryside in planning policy terms.

Policy 1 of the MFMNP sets out that development on land within the SPBs will be supported, subject to accordance with relevant policies.

JCS Policy CP2 states that new development will be directed to the most sustainable and accessible locations for new development. It identifies a settlement hierarchy with rated levels 1 to 5, with 1 being the most sustainable and 5 being the most rural villages and least sustainable locations for new development. Medstead has a modest range of facilities, including a primary school, village hall, shop and number of community organisations. Consequently, it has a rating of 4, placing it relatively low down in the sustainability hierarchy in recognition of its modest range of everyday facilities to serve new residents.

Policy CP10 sets a target for housing within the plan period in accordance with the spatial strategy and sets out the other various circumstances where housing may be granted outside defined settlement boundaries. These matters are expanded upon in the [name] Planning Document (2023). Essentially, other than developments in accordance with either policies CP14 or CP19 (below), other small scale development outside of SPBs will only be permitted where they meet a community need or aspiration; reinforce a settlement’s role and function; cannot be accommodated within the built up area; and has been identified in an adopted Neighbourhood Plan or has clear community support as demonstrated through an agreed process.

Policy CP14 of the JCS sets out that outside of the settlement policy boundaries, residential development will only be permitted where it provides affordable housing in perpetuity for local people who are unable to obtain accommodation on the open market.

Policy CP19 of the JCS relates to development in the countryside and identifies that the only types of development permissible are those with a genuine and proven need for a countryside location, such as for rural or other related enterprises. Additionally, saved policy H14 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (2006) (Local Plan) relates to housing outside settlement policy boundaries and this sets out that such will only be permitted where essential for full-time agricultural or rural workers.

No case has been advanced on the basis of the proposal realising a community need with support via the MFMNP or otherwise, nor has justification been offered for the development to be located within the countryside or to meet an affordable housing need.

Furthermore, the site’s location in the countryside, at a distance from the modest range of facilities in Medstead would fail to minimise the need to travel. The route to the village centre, along either [site address] or [address] do not have pedestrian footways and are unlit. [name] agree that the site is not isolated, the distance on foot to the facilities by made road ( [site address] ) would modestly exceed 1km and a similar distance using the nearby footpath (No 14). The footpath is also best suited for walking when conditions are dry and during daylight hours given the lack of lighting. As such, the combination of distance and lack of pedestrian protection would inhibit the travel choices made by future residents’ and as a result, would perpetuate a reliance on private vehicles. Whilst the dispersed nature of the settlement results in a more widespread dependence on the use of vehicles, that is little rationale for adding additional housing in a yet more peripheral location where there would be little realistic choice but to use a vehicle.

My attention has been drawn to an example where permission was granted outside of but close to the SPB of Four marks, on a route which also lacked footways and streetlighting. This differs from the appeal scheme as the walking route along an unlit country road to the edge of the SPB of [name] appears to be materially shorter than the approximate 1km walking route relevant in this case. Furthermore, [name] is a higher order settlement than Medstead in any event.

In view of the above, the proposal conflicts with, in particular, policies CP2, CP10, CP14 and CP19 of the JCS; policy 1 of the MFMNP and saved policy H14 of the Local Plan.

Despite a more nucleated form of development around the junction of Bighton and [name], the form of development over [site address] and [address] is more dispersed and looser knit, with larger houses separated by pockets of agricultural and equestrian land. The area is therefore pleasantly rural and longer views are available of the rolling countryside to the north and north-west.

The appeal site defined by the red line site area is situated in the middle of an open sloping paddock on the lower side of the prominently-sited host dwelling. The red line does not follow any features on the ground and is relatively arbitrarily defined. Despite some hedging and manicured landscaping within the wider land defined by the blue line, there is relatively limited structural landscaping other than the clipped roadside hedge and a backdrop of trees some way to the east of the site. As such, the site and its surroundings are relatively exposed in longer views and the open paddock contributes to the area’s generally pleasant rural context.

The appeal proposal is to construct two sizeable dwellings within the red line area, detached but alongside one another. Each dwelling would be two storeys high and would have a similar contemporary ‘barn style’ design. Both dwellings would be generously proportioned, though one would be modestly smaller than the other and both would have balconies/terracing at first floor level. The dwellings have also been designed to contrast in terms of their external finishes, with one to be clad with blackened timber and stone and the other to be natural tone timber and stone. There would be a large car parking and turning area to the front of the dwellings.

Due to their substantial size and bulk, with limited reference to local building proportions, form and features, the pair of dwellings would appear dominant and jarring. Furthermore, the substantial similarity between the dwellings’ appearance with clear differentiation demarked only through a blocky use of contrasting material palette would appear contrived. Whereas the surrounding rural charm of the area derives, in part, from a mixture of house types, the introduction of two similar blocky and contemporary houses on a relatively open site with limited landscape features would result in an insensitive and sterile form of development.

From the closest views from the access and Footpath 14, the introduction of two bulky dwellings with relatively limited landscape cover would be highly visible and urbanising. Despite the backdrop of trees to the south and south-east and a roadside hedge on [site address] , the site is relatively open and exposed in longer views. During my site visit, I walked a section of the path south from [address] and [address] and noted how visible that the proposal would be in views therefrom. From the evidence, it is also clear that there are a high number of other footpaths in the surrounding area from which other views of the rural character of the area would be materially altered. The visual effects may be partly diminished over time through the introduction of landscaping, but such would take a considerable time to establish and would not easily materially diminish the bulk of the dwellings, both individually and taken together. That the roadside hedge height would not be reduced through the requirements to provide any visibility splays does not alter my view that there would be adverse character and visual harms which would not be limited to the effects on receptors on [site address] .

For the foregoing reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to, in particular, JCS policies CP20 and CP29 and the [name] & Medstead Village Design Statement. Amongst other things, these policies seek to conserve and enhance the special characteristics of the district’s natural environment and local distinctiveness; and respect the character, identity and context of the district’s towns, villages and countryside.

The appeal site is hydrologically linked to the River Itchen Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and associated downstream receptors, including the Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site; [name]; [name] and Ramsar Site; and Chichester and [name], SAC and Ramsar Site; collectively hereafter known as the [name]. The SAC and [name] are designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations).

The SAC is designated for its exceptional chalk river habitat and the rare species it supports, including the southern damselfly, bullhead, white-clawed crayfish, and otter. The conservation objectives of the SAC include the need to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, ensure that the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features, by maintaining or restoring the extent and distribution of qualifying natural habitats and habitats of qualifying species and the structure and function of qualifying natural habitats.

Adverse changes in water quality from additional nitrogen and phosphorous loadings can lead to deterioration in the favourable condition of the SAC and [name], undermining site integrity, contrary to the Habitats Regulations.

The appeal proposal would not be connected with the management of the SAC or [name]. Conversely, adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC and [name] from the changes in land use and an increase in wastewater from two new dwellings cannot be screened out.

A Shadow Habitats Regulation Assessment (SHRA) and Nutrient Assessment and Budget (NAB) have been submitted. The key features of the mitigation strategy would comprise [name] (PTPs), one for the existing dwelling in place of its septic tank, and a separate shared PTP for the two new dwellings. The NAB outlines that these measures would result a net nitrogen reduction of 7.20 KgTN/yr and a net phosphorus nutrient reduction of 0.26 KgTP/yr. These measures would be the mitigation to prevent harm to the SAC and [name], though further measures or offsite credits would not be necessary. An annotation on the proposed site plan shows only a notional location for the PTP to replace the septic tank, without detail on any associated drainage field or detail of the location of the second PTP.

The third reason for refusal outlines that the absence of a planning obligation under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (s106 agreement or unilateral undertaking) means that it cannot be ascertained that the development would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the [name]. The appellant seeks to offer a planning condition to address the matter instead, although the suggested wording for such a condition has not been provided by either party.

It is clear that the existing septic tank within the blue line land is required to achieve the nutrient reductions. In the event that detailed planning permission were granted for self-build units within the red line area, the intention is clear that the host dwelling and associated blue line land would be freed up and released back to the market. Any successor in title could not be bound by the requirements of the condition into the future, whereas a planning obligation could secure the ongoing relationship between the respective owners of the PTPs (including successors in title) to secure the nutrient reductions on an enduring basis. The example offered by the appellant where a condition was used relates to a number of houses built under the same planning permission to be served by the same PTP in which all of the occupiers would retain an interest. As such, the planning condition would remain enforceable in that case.

Given that the appellants do not object to providing the mitigation, it should not be controversial to secure it by the most appropriate mechanism to provide the requisite certainty at the point of determination. In this case, the most appropriate mechanism would be a planning obligation. In the absence of a planning obligation to secure the necessary mitigation, the proposal would harm the integrity of the SAC and [name] as downstream receptors, contrary to the Habitats Regulations and policies CP21 and CP22 of the JCS which seek to maintain, enhance and protect district wide biodiversity, in particular the nature conservation designations.

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing land with appropriate buffer as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The parties do not dispute that the supply position is at around 2.7 years’ worth. As such, I have treated the provisions of Framework paragraph 11 d) as being engaged as a consequence of there being a shortfall below the required five year supply.

The Council acknowledges its statutory duties under the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) and accepts that whilst permissions have been granted for many self-build plots, there are entrants on the register that are in need of a self-build plot. The appellant’s point suggests that the level of unmet demand is significant, though there is no cogent evidence of the scale of such or that the appellants and intended occupiers of the second dwelling are on the register. In any event, I accept that, whilst modest, a contribution of two dwellings towards meeting the need for self-build housing would be beneficial.

However, a planning obligation to secure the self-build nature of the development has not been offered and, in the context of the tests outlined in the Framework, I am not content to place reliance on a planning condition that requires occupation of the dwellings over a specified period by the people who built them. Nevertheless, I have acknowledged the appellants’ desire to build the scheme as self-build housing, free up their own underoccupied dwelling and to live alongside a close family member which would offer future care benefits and the support that comes with multigenerational living. I attribute these benefits modest weight in the

By reason of its location, effects on the character and appearance of the area and effects on the SAC and downstream receptors, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole.

As the Council cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, I must consider the provisions of Framework paragraph 11d) which requires that planning permission should be granted unless: i. the application of policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type, or distribution of development in the plan area; or ii. any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The unmitigated harms to the SAC and [name] form a strong reason for refusal in the context of paragraph 11d) i) and consequently indicate that planning permission should be refused.

On the assumption that a planning obligation had been forthcoming to mitigate the effects on the integrity of the SAC and [name], the balancing exercise under Framework paragraph 11d) ii) would be relevant.

In this case, the proposal would deliver two dwellings in the context of a serious undersupply of housing which would be a modest benefit relative to the scale of the scheme. There would be an economic boost from the construction phase and additional support for local facilities and services. As the dwellings would be built to high efficiency standards and to add landscaping to the site, there would be limited environmental benefits. I have also taken account of the appellants’ desire to contribute to meeting their demands for self-build housing. I attribute the totality of these other benefits modest weight relative to the scale and nature of the development.

[name] attribute reduced weight to the locational conflict of the proposal with the development plan, the collective harms of a locational nature and its effects on the character and appearance of the area still significantly and demonstrably outweigh the totality of benefits. As a consequence, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan in this case.

I have considered the differences between the appeal scheme and the recent decision for the single self-build unit at [name] which have been advanced by the appellant. Though the scheme before me is detailed, for a greater number of units and capable of being accessed via made road, these are not compelling differences that lead me to an alternative overall conclusion, even in the context of the unconstrained application of Framework paragraph 11d).

I have also taken account of the views of local residents who have indicated support for the scheme for several reasons, including the appellants’ contributions to, and participation within the local community. [name] have given weight to these views, they have not directed me to an alternative decision.

The appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan. The identified benefits and points advanced in favour of the scheme do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance therewith.

Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.