Appeal 6002190

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for an application for full planning permission for a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works at [site address] , Wingfield, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02667, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

There are three reasons for refusal on the Council’s decision notice, though the Council’s Officer Report refers to issues beyond those set out. In the interests of completeness, I have considered all of the issues and their corresponding policies rather than those only listed in the decision notice. In the circumstances of the case, this has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.

The Council’s Statement also identified the absence of a planning obligation to secure the dwelling as a self-build dwelling under the terms of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 and related absence of [name] (BNG) baseline assessment. A unilateral undertaking made as a deed pursuant to s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, dated 26 January 2026, was subsequently submitted by the appellant. I return to this below.

The main issues in the appeal are: • whether the location of the development accords with policies of the development plan for new residential development; • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; • whether the proposal would provide an acceptable living environment to future occupiers, with particular regard to privacy; and • the effects on the Bath and Bradford-on-Avon Bat Special Area of Conservation (SAC).

The Wiltshire Core Strategy (2015) ([name]) sets out settlement and delivery strategies for the county. Core Policy 1 (CP1) defines the settlement strategy and identifies four tiers of settlement: [name]; [name]; Local Service Centres; and Large and [name]. Wingfield is categorised as a small village under the [name] and such villages are without a defined development boundary.

Policy CP2 of the [name] sets out that developments at small villages will only be supported where they seek to meet the housing needs of settlements and provided that they (i) respect the existing character and form of the settlement; (ii) do not elongate the village or impose development in sensitive landscape areas; and (iii) do not consolidate existing sporadic loose knit areas of development related to the settlement. The supporting text of the policy goes on to state that infill is defined as the filling of a small gap within the village that is only large enough for not more than a few dwellings, generally only one dwelling.

Whilst the Council indicate that the site should be treated as a rear garden, having regard to evidence of its historic and current functions, and therefore not as a gap suited to infilling, the policy does not specifically preclude infilling on gardens. Whilst the location of the site within a small village and the scale of the proposal at a single dwelling are compliant with [name] policy CP2, there is an assessment to be made on the separate issue of character and form to reach an overall conclusion on compliance or otherwise; a point to which return below.

The appeal site is located within the small village of Wingfield which is washed over by the Green Belt designation. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate by definition unless one of the listed exceptions applies. In this case, the appellant largely relies on the exception at 154e).

It is not disputed that the site is within a village but the parties disagree on whether the scheme would constitute infilling. Whilst the Council refers to infilling being more about infilling of gaps in the built form, rather than intensification of low density residential development, I disagree. Whilst the scheme would not infill a gap in the streetscene, it would infill an area of space as a form of backland development which is within the built limits of the village. In my view, having regard to the nature, size and location of the proposal, it would amount to infilling, rather than a form of urban spawl.

Whilst it is also alleged that the site constitutes ‘Grey Belt’ under the terms of the Framework, it is not necessary to reach a finding on this aspect as the development would not be inappropriate under 154e) in any event.

In view of the above, the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt under the terms of the Framework.

As the appeal site is formed from part of a generously proportioned rear garden of No 42, it is enclosed on all sides by existing dwellings. The access to the site would be to the side of the garage belonging to No 42 which is already hardsurfaced.

The arrangement of the development would be best described as backland which is not common in this area and the introduction of the proposal here would result in a relatively cramped arrangement. Furthermore, the design and appearance of the single storey, modestly proportioned dwelling would be more contemporary than the largely traditional dwellings found in the immediate surroundings. Though it would not elongate the village, impose development in sensitive landscape areas or consolidate existing sporadic loose knit areas of development, it would not fully respect the existing character and form of the settlement.

Despite its differences from the form and layout of existing dwellings in the surrounding area, a mitigating factor is that there would be only limited and glimpsed public views available of the dwelling. The garage and dwelling at No 42 would largely screen views from [address], although some views within the streetscene would be altered by the introduction of an additional vehicular access, increased extent of hardsurfacing back into the plot and additional boundary treatments and cars.

Notwithstanding its limited presence within the streetscene, the proposal would result in a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to CP51 and CP57 of the [name], and by extension, also policy CP2. Amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that development respects the character and form of a settlement, is of a high standard of design and creates a strong sense of place through drawing on the local context.

Due to the arrangement of dwellings surrounding the appeal site, there is already a degree of mutual overlooking between gardens and dwellings. Owing to the single storey height of the proposed dwelling and its degree of enclosure by boundaries, the proposed dwelling would not give rise to any harmful overlooking of neighbouring dwellings or gardens. It would be provided with a modest amount of space between its external walls and the garden boundaries on the south, west and part of its northern boundary. It would have its main areas of garden to the east and to the north, in the space created by the ‘L-shape’ of the dwelling. The proposed site plan denotes that the garden would be enclosed by fencing of around 2.1m in height which would be sufficient to prevent overlooking between gardens and ground floor level windows between the appeal dwelling and No 42.

However, there is a first floor Juliet balcony on an angled section of the rear elevation of No 42 which would overlook areas of the garden of the appeal dwelling. Given its elevation and orientation, this window would be more intrusive than is typical of the degree of mutual overlooking typically found in the area.

In view of this particular arrangement, the proposal would provide future occupiers with a compromised living environment, having particular regard to the privacy of its garden. It would therefore conflict with policy CP57 of the [name] which seeks to ensure that appropriate levels of amenity are achievable within the development itself, including the consideration of privacy.

The appeal scheme has the potential to affect the SAC which is a site designated under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitats Regulations). The qualifying species of the SPA include Greater horseshoe (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) and Bechstein's bat ([name]).

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 Favourable Conservation Status of its [name], by maintaining or restoring; the extent and distribution of the habitats of qualifying species; the structure and function of the habitats of qualifying species; the supporting processes on which the habitats of qualifying species rely; the populations of qualifying species, and, the distribution of qualifying species within the site”. I have had regard to these objectives in undertaking my duties in accordance with the Habitats Regulations.

The SAC comprises a network of significant underground sites, including four nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), namely [name], [name], [name] and [name], and [name]. These component sites comprise extensive networks of caves, mines and man-made tunnels which are used by bats for hibernation, breeding, mating and as a staging post prior to dispersal. The grassland, watercourses, scrub and woodland surrounding them are used by bats for feeding and commuting. Although the habitats are not included in the SAC designation, they are vital to support the bats which are features of the SAC. Development proposals within the consultation zone areas could potentially trigger impacts on the SAC by affecting sensitive features such as roosts, foraging areas, commuting corridors through means such as physical changes; lighting; noise, vibration; recreational disturbance; pollution and mortality (cat predation).

The appeal proposal lies centrally within the village of Wingfield which is on the outer edge of the consultation zone for the Bath and [name]. The proposal will not be directly connected with or necessary for the management of the SAC. Adopting a precautionary approach, by virtue of the location of the proposal within the consultation zone, the development could give rise to likely significant effects on the [name], such as to require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations.

A preliminary ecological appraisal (PEA) was undertaken at the appeal site in March 2025. The PEA confirms that the site is a small residential garden in an enclosed urban environment, enclosed on all sides by existing housing, with no semi-natural habitat, no ecological connectivity to the wider landscape, and no features capable of supporting bat roosts. Though the site has limited resources for bat foraging and is connected to a wider complex of gardens, the area has municipal lighting to the north ([address], and lighting from the host dwelling) which limits its use to more common species such as pipistrelle bats. As such, the site is assessed to be of low value to foraging bats for which the SAC is designated. Though the PEA recommended two bat boxes as means of enhancement, it did not recommend any further bat surveys in connection with the project.

Other than the enhancement recommendations proposed, the assessment made through the PEA and through my own site visit are sufficient for me to reach a conclusion that further bat surveys would not be necessary in this instance. As competent authority, I am satisfied that having regard to the specific location, scale and characteristics of the site and proposal, that the project would not result in any significant effects on the SAC through harm to sensitive features which contribute to its integrity. I have also had regard to the views of Natural England in its capacity as the Statutory Nature Conservation Body.

In view of the above, the proposal would not conflict with policy CP50 of the [name] which indicates that any development that would have an adverse effect on the integrity of a European nature conservation site will not be in accordance with the [name].

The Council is currently progressing the Wiltshire Local Plan Pre-Submission Draft 2020-2038 through examination in public. Neither party has brought any specific policies to my attention and the Council has indicated that its policies hold limited weight in the planning balance. I find no reason to reach an alternative conclusion in this regard.

In its evidence, the Council concedes that it cannot demonstrate a minimum five year supply of housing land with the appropriate buffer as required by the Framework. The Council has suggested the supply figure is closer to a 2.42 year supply. This is a considerable shortfall and means that the provisions of Framework paragraph 11 d) are engaged in the application of the planning balance.

The submitted UU obliges the owner, who is one of the named appellants, to build the dwelling as a self-build dwelling and to either occupy it himself or for an immediate family member to build and occupy the dwelling in the same manner. The initial occupation as a principal residence by either of the appellants and/or immediate family members would be for a period of at least three years and the proposal would comply with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 in all other respects. To place the legalistic terms of the UU into context, the evidence clarifies that the appellants are immediate family members and the self-build dwelling would be occupied by one of them with their household, with the other continuing to reside in No 42.

As the dwelling would be built under the terms of the permission as a self-build dwelling, any BNG exemptions would appear to apply. I am satisfied that the UU is necessary and relevant to the development proposed as described and I shall therefore take it into consideration.

Whilst the proposal would not represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt, it would result in a degree of harm to the character and appearance of the area with a compromised garden for future occupiers. Furthermore, as it would not fully respect the character and form of the existing settlement, the proposal would also conflict with policy CP2 of the [name] which caveats its support for new small residential developments within villages on this basis. These matters bring the scheme into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

As the provisions of Framework paragraph 11d) are engaged, it is necessary to consider whether there are any strong reasons for refusal of the kind referred to in 11d) i) and Framework footnote 7. Given that I do not find the development to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as it would not result in harm to the integrity of the SAC, no such strong reasons for refusal exist.

Framework paragraph 11d) ii) then requires consideration be given to whether the harms from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

The identified harms to the character and appearance of the area would be particularly localised and modest in magnitude. Though this harm also results in the scheme conflicting with Core Policy CP2, this conflict attracts reduced weight as it does not change that the development would be located within the village and otherwise acceptably located for such a modest scale of development.

Though the garden area would be more overlooked than would typically be acceptable, the current linked ownership and occupancy of the appeal site and No 42, indicates that such a degree of overlooking would not be unacceptable to the intended occupiers. The UU securing the self-build obligations would mean that the occupiers for the initial three years would be more likely to be relatives of the occupiers of No 42. It would be at the discretion of the appellants to implement subsequent changes to landscaping, intervening boundary treatments and/or fenestration changes at No 42 to further maximise the privacy afforded to potential subsequent occupiers, who would also be able to make their own informed choice about the acceptability of the arrangement.

The benefits of the scheme include the delivery of a self-build dwelling in the context of a considerable shortfall in the supply of housing land. The location of the site within a village would also mean that some facilities would be available to future occupiers without an over-reliance on private vehicles. Notwithstanding the related effects on the character and appearance of the area, the proposal would also represent a more efficient use of land and it would also deliver minor ecological enhancements. These benefits collectively attract modest weight in the

Taking all of the above into account, my overall view is that the harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the totality of benefits that would flow from the scheme. As such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies in this case and indicates that the decision should be taken other than in strict accordance with the development plan.

In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition is needed to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

In the interests of species protection and ecology enhancements generally, conditions are needed to require adherence to the PEA, implementation of enhancement measures and details of any necessary lighting schemes.

To ensure the protection of the character and appearance of the area, conditions are needed to require details of external materials, details of and implementation of any necessary landscaping measures.

In the interests of highway safety, conditions are needed to ensure that the access, visibility splays and parking areas are provided and maintained. For similar reasons, it is also necessary to condition that any gates open inwardly away from the highway and that surface water cannot leave the site onto the highway.

I have considered the grounds of objection advanced by the Parish Council, including that allowing the development would create a precedent. Each application is determined on its own merits and allowing this proposal need not set an undesirable precedent for developments of a similar nature. Similarly, I cannot consider a future hypothetical scenario involving the upward extension of the dwelling to provide a first floor level given that my focus is on the proposal before me for a single storey dwelling.

In terms of whether the proposal would be likely to exacerbate on-street parking close to the site, the proposal would have two spaces of its own, with turning area, and at least two spaces would be retained for No 42. This would be sufficient and would not add parking stress to the area. The proposed access would also be provided with adequate visibility splays in the context of a low speed and low traffic highway environment so as to avoid any prejudice to the safety of highway users.

The dwelling would provide adequate internal floorspace and external amenity space so as to meet the needs of future occupiers without unduly impacting upon any living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

I accept that there is the potential for construction phase impacts that could be mitigated by way of a planning condition which the appellants have indicated would be acceptable. I have therefore imposed such a condition.

The Parish Council’s suggestion that permitted development rights should be removed by way of planning condition has also been considered. Given the compact scale of the site and potential for unintended effects on neighbouring occupiers, it is also reasonable to remove permitted development rights by way of planning condition.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • Revised Site Plan – Ref 1204/3B • Location Plan • [name] and Sections – Ref 1204/2 • [name] and [name] – Ref 1204/1

The development hereby approved is based on the conformity and strict adherence with the following document: • Preliminary Ecological Assessment 12th March 2025 by Alder Ecology Section Recommendations page 18

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Statement shall provide for: • the parking of vehicles of site operatives, visitors and residents during construction works; • loading and unloading of plant and materials; • storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; • wheel washing facilities; • measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; • delivery, demolition and construction working hours. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

No development shall commence above ground floor slab level until the exact details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall commence above ground floor slab level until a scheme of hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the details of which shall include: - • All hard and soft surfacing materials. • Means of enclosure. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

All soft landscaping comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the building or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner; All shrubs, trees and hedge planting shall be maintained free from weeds and shall be protected from damage by vermin and stock. Any trees or plants which, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. All hard landscaping shall also be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied until the access, turning area & parking spaces have been completed in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans. The areas shall always be maintained for those purposes thereafter.

No part of the development shall be first occupied, until the visibility splays shown on the approved plans have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 900mm above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall always be maintained free of obstruction thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the first 5m of the access, measured from the edge of the carriageway, has been consolidated and surfaced (not loose stone or gravel). The access shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Any gates shall be set back 4.5 metres from the edge of the carriageway, such gates to open inwards only.

Notwithstanding the submitted details, the proposed development shall not be occupied until means/works have been implemented to avoid private water from entering the highway. The development shall be maintained as such thereafter.

No new external lighting shall be installed within the application site unless details of proposed new lighting have been submitted in writing to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

No development shall commence above ground floor slab level until details of the number, design and locations of bat roosts and nesting opportunities for birds (e.g. bat and bird boxes) is submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The approved details shall be implemented before occupation and shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], AA, B or E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken. ENDS