Appeal 6001993

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application is submitted in outline with all detailed matters reserved for a subsequent reserved matters application except for access. An indicative site layout plan accompanies the outline planning application which indicates how the dwellings could be accommodated on the site relative to the proposed access points and the circulation routes within the site. I have taken this plan into account with regards to the proposed points of access, but I have regarded it as indicative for purposes of the layout of the dwellings and the internal circulation routes.

My attention has been drawn to the appeal site’s location within land identified by Natural England as forming part of the proposed extension to the Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL). As far as I am aware, the site does not yet form part of the National Landscape, as such the weight I can attach to this is limited.

As part of the appeal documents the appellant submitted additional information in the form of a ‘[name] dated 7 November 2025, ‘AEWC Ltd Report’ dated 7 November 2025, and a [name] N02 dated 25 November 2025 which seek to address the Council’s landscape, ecology and highways concerns. As the Council has had the opportunity to comment on the additional information, my decision to accept these additional documents would not be prejudicial to it.

The main issues are: a) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape, in particular its effect on the adjoining South Downs National Park; and b) whether or not the site is a suitable location for residential land use, having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan.

The appeal site comprises part of two pasture fields, south of [address]. To the north, on the opposite side of [address] to the appeal site lies Alice Holt Forest and the South Downs National Park (SDNP), an area designated for its landscape and scenic beauty.

The appeal site is located in the Kingsley Landscape Character Area (LCA5A) in the East Hampshire Landscape Character Assessment Update (June 2024) (EHLCA). LCA5A is an area of mixed farmland and woodland which is characterised by 18th-19th century enclosure generally comprising regular, medium sized fields, floodplain grazing meadows and fragments of woodland and sparse settlement largely comprising farms and associated farm buildings. Away from the A325, it is noted for its strong sense of tranquillity and strong rural character. The EHLCA’s landscape strategy for this LCA is to conserve the area as a peaceful, intimate landscape of farmland and woodland.

Opposite the appeal site, along [address], there is an isolated group of 6 semi-detached properties and a detached dwelling known as ‘Kites’, a [name] listed building. The semi-detached dwellings are tightly spaced with short front gardens and long rear gardens, except for Kites which is well set back from the road in a generous garden.

Although near these dwellings, in the context of the gently undulating countryside to the south and east and the adjoining woodland of the SDNP, the appeal site relates more to the surrounding countryside than this built development, contributing significantly to the open, rural, pastoral character of the area.

The development of the site for 8 dwellings would approximately double the development currently found at the junction of [address] and [address]. When viewed in combination with the existing dwellings, the grouping of the dwellings would not appear sparse, but uncharacteristically suburban, harmfully detracting from the area’s established field pattern and open, rural, agricultural character.

Whilst the layout is left for the reserved matters stage, the indicative layout plan depicts two rows of dwellings set well back from the highway, at the end of [address] and also facing [address]. This is significantly at odds with the tight grain of the majority of the development along [address]. [name] recognise that this is only one way that the site could be developed, given the number of dwellings relative to the overall site area, the resulting development would consequently be more dispersed than the existing pattern of development on [address].

With regards to the appeal site’s location outside of, but almost adjoining the SDNP and advice in the PPG1 regarding the consideration of the setting of a National Park, I have given great weight to the duty imposed by Section 85 of the 1 [name]: 042 [name]: 8-042-20190721 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the setting of the National Park. I am also mindful that the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing National Parks (the Broads and National Landscapes) as they have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

I have considered the appellant’s landscape submissions and arguments that the proposed development would be contained by its enclosure by existing housing along [address], Alice Holt Forest and rising topography and mature trees and hedgerows, therefore there would only be localised, low level changes to the landscape setting of the SDNP. However, irrespective of the site’s existing containment and proposals to further strengthen planting, along with the potential to impose conditions to minimise light spill, it is my view that the urbanising impact of the proposal would undoubtedly still be appreciable from [address] and its recreational routes2 and along [address] in the vicinity of the [address] junction. For these reasons, I find that by virtue of its built form, residential activity and lighting at night, the proposal would harmfully encroach into the countryside both in the short and the long term. Additionally, the activity and vehicular movements associated with the dwellings would erode the characteristic tranquillity of the area. As such the proposal would have a significant harmful impact on the landscape, including the setting of the SDNP.

Consequently, the proposed development has failed to demonstrate that it would conserve and enhance the SDNP. Accordingly, I find conflict with Policies CP20 and CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name] (JCS). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is appropriate and sympathetic to its setting and contributes to local distinctiveness and sense of place as well as conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the SDNP and its setting.

The appeal site is located approximately 1.1km southwest of the nearest village Dockenfield. The parties agree that the site is located outside the defined settlement boundary. Therefore, for the purpose of planning and this appeal it is in the countryside.

Under the terms of Policies CP2 and CP10 of the JCS, new development is directed to the most sustainable and accessible locations in the district. Development located outside a settlement boundary is only acceptable where it supports the provision of affordable housing or it is necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises (as defined under [name] CP14 and CP19).

There is no evidence to suggest that the dwellings are necessary for farming, forestry, or other rural enterprises and the appellant has confirmed that development would not include the provision of affordable housing therefore the development gains no support from Policies CP10, CP14 or CP19.

JCS Policy CP31 encourages the use of sustainable modes of transport and reduced dependence on the private car and indicates that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel. The National Design Guide [address] long distance recreational footpath and National Cycle Network Route 22. advises that local facilities should be within a 10-minute walk, or an 800m radius to be within a walkable distance.

With regards to access to day-to day services, it is clear from the evidence before me that Dockenfield has a very limited service offering3. Given it would entail a journey of around 13 minutes by foot4, via unlit roads lacking pedestrian footways, it is unlikely that this would be a desirable route for the occupants of the proposed housing to take on foot or by bicycle, especially by more vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly and children or during hours of darkness.

With regards to the availability of public transport to services and facilities in other settlements, the appellant states that the nearest bus stops are on the A325 at [name]. The bus stops are within an approximate 10-minute walk, with the southbound bus stop located approximately 750m from the site and a northbound bus stop located approximately 830m away. These stops provide half hourly bus services between Bordon, Farnham and Aldershot on weekdays from early-morning to evening. A similar service is provided on Saturdays, with reduced hourly services on Sundays.

Whilst most of the route would be along [address] which the appellant’s evidence suggests would be safe for walkers due to low traffic levels and lack of collision incidents, as there is no footway or streetlights, I do not consider that it would be a desirable walking route. In view of this, whilst there would be access via a 10-minute walk and public transport to nearby towns and larger settlements, some residents would need to travel by private car to meet their day-to-day needs.

I acknowledge that the dwellings would be fitted with electric charging points and cycle parking provided. However, these provisions would not reduce the need to travel.

Consequently, while recognising that opportunities for sustainable transport solutions varies between rural and urban areas, in view of the above, I find that the proposal would not support the locational aims of the JCS or the Framework’s advice to avoid unsustainable patterns of development. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal site would not be a suitable location for residential land use, having regard to its conflict with the spatial strategy of the development plan, specifically JCS Policy CP1 which supports sustainable development and Policies CP2, CP10, CP14, CP19, and CP31 as referred to above.

With regards to the [name] listed ‘Kites’ to the southwest of the appeal site, the building comprises a traditional timber framed house constructed in the seventeenth century, extended in the twentieth century. In so far as is relevant to the proposal its significance lies in its age and its traditional construction. Taking account of the separation distance between it and the appeal site and the historic mapping evidence before me that states that the appeal site has no historical or functional relationship with the listed building, I agree with the Council that it is unlikely that the proposed development would affect the significance of the listed building or its setting. As such, I have treated the proposal’s impact on heritage assets as a neutral factor in this appeal. 3 A village pub and a church - Ref. [name] dated 20 January 2026. 4 Applying the walking speed of 1.33 metres per second suggested by the appellant in N02 - [name] dated 25 November 2025.

The site lies within 400m to 5km buffer zone for the Wealden Heaths Special Protection Areas (SPAs), which are so designated for their importance to ground-nesting birds. Additional residential development within this zone can increase recreational activity within these protected habitats with potentially harmful effects. As the competent authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, had I been minded to allow the appeal, I would have sought further information. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, it has not been necessary for me to consider this matter further

Whilst the Highway Authority have confirmed that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable in principle and the Council does not raise any objections, subject to conditions, to the proposal in relation to archaeology, biodiversity or protected species and habitats including its impact on trees, drainage and impact on neighbouring occupiers, compliance with the development plan in respect of these matters are neutral factors that weigh neither for nor against the development.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and that it has a shortfall amounting to 2.7 year’s supply. This is significantly below Government expectations, and it is therefore evident that there is a pressing need for housing when considering this shortfall.

Socially, the proposal would deliver 8 new houses which is suggested would consist of a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bed houses, and would be designed to reflect the traditional architectural style. This would make a valuable contribution to the Council’s housing land supply and thus would contribute to the Government’s objective to significantly boost the supply of homes. In social and economic terms, the proposal would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out. When inhabited, its occupants would help to support the local economy and services. Landscaping associated with the proposal would provide environmental and biodiversity benefits. The occupants would also have door step access to the SDNP aligning with the Park’s aim to maximise accessibility.

As discussed above, the proposed development would not be in walking distance of local services. Whilst it would be in a location with opportunities for travel by public transport, it is likely that the private motor car would still be relied upon as a convenient mode of transport to reach other settlements and towns.

Considering the 5-year housing land supply position, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework indicates that 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. Footnote 7 of the Framework lists National Parks as one such asset of importance. [name] have found harm to the SDNP, this weighs against the proposal.

Overall, I consider that the combined benefits of the proposal attract moderate weight. However, considering the harm I have identified to the SDNP, which provides a strong reason for refusing the development, there is no requirement to apply the test in paragraph 11d) ii) of the Framework. Consequently, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the proposal would conflict with CP1, CP2, CP10, CP14, CP19, CP20, CP29 and CP31 of the JCS.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no other considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan and so the appeal is dismissed.