Appeal 6001980

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new build dwelling with associated access and parking at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00561/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An appeal, for the erection of a dwelling on the appeal site, was dismissed in 2008. The main issue in that case was the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The infill plot was found to be contrived and awkwardly shaped, with an uncharacteristically narrow frontage. It was found that it would read as part of No 7 and effectively part of the same mass. However, I understand that the scheme had a larger footprint and was determined in a different policy context than the proposal the subject of this appeal. I therefore afford this previous decision limited weight in my consideration of the merits of the proposal.

A S106 [name] [12/2/26], in the form of a [name] (UU), has been submitted by the appellant in support of the proposal. This seeks to make financial contributions towards the Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) and the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC) SAMM. [name] also seeks to secure the property as a self-build dwelling. This is a signed and certified document. I shall return to this later.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, • The effect on the [name] and Ramsar Site and [name], and • The effect of the proposal on the [name], New Forest SPA and Ramsar Site.

[address] is a short residential cul-de-sac, forming a small enclave of development that has only a limited relationship with the wider area. The style and design of housing comprise bungalows of various designs, some of which have been extended with dormer windows. The appeal site is at the head of the road with housing spread around the turning circle creating wedge-shaped plots. Whilst plots include relatively generous rear gardens, the dwellings are close together, with hard standing and built form predominant features from the street. Nonetheless, due to the low-key scale of development the area provides a moderate sense of spaciousness that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is to the side of [site address] (No 7). The site has been subdivided from No 7 with wooden fencing severing the plot. Based on the submitted ordnance survey plan and my own observations the created plot is similar to plots sizes seen locally, albeit smaller than several adjacent examples include No’s 6, 7 and 8. Furthermore, the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be smaller than the adjacent dwellings. Nonetheless, despite these noted differences, the plot would not appear contrived. It would have a conventional rear garden shape and size, enabling occupiers to readily undertake typical day to day outdoor activities.

In design terms the proposed dwelling takes design queues from the local built vernacular, including being of single storey form, having hipped roofs and including brick and render walls. As such, the design of the proposal would integrate well with its surroundings. However, the proposed dwelling would be set behind the established row of dwellings which currently fit within a largely consistent curved front building line around the turning head.

As a result, the proposal would project further into the rear garden than is noted for adjacent plots and would not address the street as stridently as neighbouring development. Whilst the proposal would only be apparent from within the turning head of [address], it would create a form of development that would not fully align with existing built form and would appear slightly cramped within this setting. These features result in a dwelling that would not be especially well positioned within its site, resulting in development that would not be fully in keeping with adjacent built form.

As a result, the proposal would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would cause conflict with policy 6.8 of the Bournemouth District Wide Local Plan [2002](LP), policy CS41 of the [name] [2012](CS) and the Council’s Residential Design Guide [2008]. These seek, among other matters, for development to complement and respect the character of neighbouring development and to be well designed and of high quality.

The site is within the zone of influence (ZOI) of the [name] and Ramsar Site and part of the [name]. These provide protected priority habitats for species including Dartford warblers, nightjars, woodlark, hen harrier, merlin, sand lizards and smooth snakes as well as other typical species of lowland heathland, wetlands and dunes. The Dorset Heathland SPD sets out a strategy for the avoidance and mitigation of impacts of new residential and tourism development upon the [name].

Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations [2017] I am required, as Competent Authority, to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) to consider the risk to the [name]. The proposal is for residential development, and it is likely that future occupiers would visit the SPA for recreation. Additional visits from the public would be likely to erode the specific interests of the European Site. As such, likely significant effects on the integrity of the SPA cannot be ruled out which would harm its conservation objectives.

Mitigation, as identified through the [name], would be required to address the identified adverse effect on the bird and reptile habitats within the Site of Special Scientific Interest. The UU would make provision for a SAMM financial contribution. This would mitigate the identified effects of the proposal on the SPA, a conclusion shared by Natural England (NE) who has responded through consultation for this appeal.

Accordingly, the proposal would comply with CS policy CS33 and [name], in terms of impact on the [name], the Ramsar Site and [name]. This seeks, among other matters, for development to demonstrate it would not result in an adverse effect upon the integrity, directly or indirectly, of the [name].

The appeal site is also within the ZOI of the New Forest SAC, which is designated for its wildlife importance. It is likely that future occupiers of the proposed dwelling would visit the New Forest for recreational purposes. It is also likely that additional residential development within the ZOI would, in combination with other projects, erode the integrity of the SAC, requiring an AA. The New Forest Strategic Access Management and [name] [2023] identifies the need for mitigation in the form of SAMM contributions to address the likely significant effects. The UU would make provision for a SAMM financial contribution that, NE has also confirmed, would mitigate the identified effects of the proposal on the SAC.

Accordingly, the proposal would also comply with CS policy CS33 and the New Forest Strategic Access Management and [name] [2023], in terms of impact on the New Forest SAC, New Forest SPA and Ramsar Site, the requirements of which are set out above.

The proposal is advanced as a self-build project, this would make the scheme exempt of biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements of the Environment Act. The UU identifies that the dwelling would be delivered only as a self-build and custom build property, that the owner would have primary input into the final design, would reside within the dwelling and should this change, the owner would need to fully comply with BNG requirements. The Council has been given an opportunity to consider the UU, but has not offered any comments. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that the proposal would meet the self-build exemption of the Environment Act in this respect.

In terms of traffic and parking concerns raised by interested parties, the proposal would include sufficient space to accommodate two off-street parking spaces, and the access would make use of an existing dropped kerb. As such, it is unlikely that the proposal would result in a material increase in traffic or on-street parking to cause highway safety issues, a conclusion shared by the highway authority.

The site appeared to be largely cleared of vegetation during my visit. As such, the reported removal of tees and any adverse impact on biodiversity predate my assessment of the appeal. Furthermore, being a self-build project, the proposal is exempt from needing to meet BNG and the layout plan indicates that new planting will be provided as part of the redevelopment of the site. This leads me to find that the proposal would increase the biodiversity vale of the site from its current status.

Some objections received suggest that the proposed dwelling could be used for short term holiday lets. However, this is not proposed and would be incompatible with the intended use of the property as a self-build scheme. Accordingly, concerns related to holiday lets and any associated noise and disturbance and anti-social behaviour are unjustified. The scheme is presented as a residential scheme within a residential area and would therefore be compatible with its surrounding area.

The proposal would include rear and front facing windows that would overlook only the site itself. A small side window would provide a limited and restricted view towards the shared boundary of [site address] (no 7). Furthermore, No 7 has side windows that serve a study and kitchen. Nonetheless, views between the existing and proposed dwelling would be oblique and restricted causing no privacy issues. Furthermore, whilst the proposal would be close to the side windows of No 7, it would be unlikely to materially reduce sunlight or daylight to the property due to the separation distance and modest scale of the proposal. The neighbouring property of [address] (no 8) is on higher land than the appeal site resulting in no adverse effect on privacy. Also, due to the small size of the dwelling and its hipped roof, it would not materially erode the outlook of neighbouring occupiers.

Furthermore, whilst the proposed dwelling is shown to be adjacent to the shared boundary of No 8 it would be fully within the demise of the appeal site. Issues of maintenance and construction are civil matters to be agreed between landowners and, as such, have a limited bearing on my consideration of the merits of the case.

It is undisputed between parties that the Council cannot demonstrate it has a 5- year housing land supply, with a supply of 2.1 years (as at 1 April 2024). As a result, the circumstances as set out under footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) apply. Consequently, the development plan policies which are most important for determining the application are to be deemed out-of-date. In light of Paragraph 11(d)(ii) the benefits of the scheme and its adverse impacts need to be considered against the Framework policies as a whole.

The proposal would represent a small infill plot within a settlement boundary, gaining support from paragraph 73(d) of the Framework. Furthermore, the proposal would help boost the supply of housing as promoted under the Framework, albeit that a single unit would make only a modest contribution in these respects. The scheme would also provide a self-build unit, promoted by the Framework in seeking housing for “people who wish to commission or build their own home”. There would also be limited benefits in terms of the generation of construction employment and support from future occupiers to local services.

The Proposal would cause moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area, an objective sought by paragraph 135(c) which requires development to be sympathetic to local character.

The several benefits of the scheme attract significant weight overall. Against this, the identified modest harm in respect of character and appearance only attracts moderate weight. Therefore, I find the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits when assessed against the Framework. The presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out at paragraph 11 of the Framework would therefore apply.

I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I shall take the Council’s suggested conditions into consideration and imposed these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity.

I have imposed the standard conditions with respect to timeframe and approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [conditions 1 and 2]. Conditions are required, with respect to the provision of the driveway, cycle parking store and inward opening gates to ensure suitable transport provision is made on site [3 and 4]. Also, a condition is required to protect the site against unexpected contamination, based on the site’s proximity to the [address] Tipped Site and being near to records of historic unknown filled ground [6].

The scheme would comply with development plan policies when read as a whole. Therefore, for the above reasons, the appeal is allowed, subject to conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s 400 338 03 Proposed Site & Location Plan, 400 338 04 a Proposed Site Plan, 400 338 05 a [name], 400 338 06 a [name], 400 338 [address] Scene, and 400 338 08 [name].

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the access and parking area shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out and constructed, in bound and permeable materials. Thereafter, these areas shall be permanently maintained and retained as such, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied the cycle storage facilities shown on the hereby approved plans shall be constructed. Thereafter, these shall be retained and maintained as such, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

No outward opening access gates or similar barriers between the parking areas and the footways shall be formed at any time along the site’s frontage without a grant of specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

In the event that unexpected contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and further development ceased. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the Environment Agency “Land contamination risk management (LCRM)” procedures and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of the scheme recommencing. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation. End of Conditions