Appeal 6002232

The appeal is dismissed.

The scheme would impact upon the internationally important habitat sites of the New Forest Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Area (SPA), and Ramsar, the Solent and [name] and Ramsar, the [name], and the Solent and [name]. One of the reasons for refusal of the original application was that the impact upon these habitat sites had not been adequately mitigated. To address these matters during the appeal the appellant submitted a [name] (UU) to provide contributions for avoidance, mitigation, and monitoring measures for the habitat sites. The Council has stated that the UU has overcome this reason for refusal. Consequently, the appeal turns on the main issues identified below, albeit the matter of the habitat sites will be returned to later.

The main issues in this case are: - whether the scheme would be inappropriate development in the green belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and local development plan policies; - the effect of the scheme upon the character and appearance of the area; - whether the location of the dwelling would accord with national and local policy; and - whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances to justify the proposal.

The appeal site comprises a detached single storey building that derives access onto [site address] via a private track. Constructed of render, concrete blocks and timber under a low pitched fibre cement roof, it is one of a group of three workshop buildings positioned in a line near a public footpath. There are fields and paddocks surrounding the site, and beyond the footpath to the north are the gardens of a house.

The site is within the South West Hampshire Green Belt, and Policy ENV2 of the New Forest District Council Local Development Framework Part 1 Planning Strategy (2020) (PS) reflects the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), as it requires that the openness and permanence of the green belt will be preserved. When considering any planning application within a green belt, the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to it, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the green belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework identify exceptions for when development is not inappropriate. Paragraph 154 provides a list that includes, amongst other things, the re-use of buildings. In addition, the route to ascertaining not inappropriate development also requires assessment against paragraph 155. The development of homes should not be regarded as inappropriate where the development utilises grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining green belt, where there is a demonstrable need for the development proposed, where it would be in a sustainable location, and where it would meet the golden rules.

Building Re-Use. The re-use of buildings within the green belt may be an exception to inappropriate development provided they are of permanent and substantial construction. It is also required that the development would preserve the openness of the green belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

There is no disagreement between the main parties that the scheme would involve the re-use of a building that is of permanent and substantial construction, and the conversion would neither increase the footprint nor volume of the building. However, the residential use of the site would reduce the spatial and visual openness of the green belt. Although the appellant considers the dwelling would be seen in a part residential context, it would be separated from the nearest home by workshops, with the positioning within a field reinforcing this separation. The presence of even a one-bed dwelling would result in a loss of openness as a result of residential activity, paraphernalia, and boundary treatments, and this would be particularly evident to users of the public right of way. These uses would occur in addition to those of the other workshops and also the agricultural uses and activity, including the parking of farm vehicles.

The loss of openness would be on a limited basis due to the modest size of the dwelling. Irrespective of this and the appellant accepting conditions to remove permitted development rights, the scheme would result in a loss of openness and would conflict with one of the purposes of the green belt, that is encroachment into the countryside. Despite being the re-use of a building, the scheme would be inappropriate development in the green belt.

Grey Belt. Although the Council has not referred to grey belt within the reason for refusal, an assessment of paragraph 155 of the Framework has been undertaken. The appellant has not disputed the findings of the Council that the scheme would be in grey belt. The appeal site is in the countryside and is separated from the gardens of the nearest homes and from the town of Lymington by paddocks and fields. The site is not near a large built-up area, would not result in the merging of neighbouring towns, nor would it be part of the setting to an historic town. The scheme would thereby utilise grey belt land.

The Council has acknowledged that because of the size of the site compared to that of the green belt as a whole the scheme would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (when taken together) of the remaining green belt. It has also been acknowledged that a five year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated as there is an acute shortfall at 1.53 years. As regards the golden rules, the scheme would not be major development, so this criterion is not applicable.

Notwithstanding this, there is disagreement between the parties as to whether the development would be in a sustainable location. There are limited services within Bowling Green, the nearest of which are a bus stop and public house at approximately 1km away. Further away are the diverse range of services, facilities and employment opportunities within Lymington, which the appellant describes as a forty minute walk away or a five minute drive.

Accessing the town and Bowling Green would necessitate walking or cycling along a busy road that is neither lit nor does it have a dedicated footway. There is a wide grass verge to some parts of the road, but this would be difficult to walk upon particularly when vegetation was uncut or when it was muddy, and in an easterly direction the verge disappears with the road being enclosed by tall hedges, including along a section that comprises sharp bends. The public footpath that borders the site goes to Lymington, but using this would also necessitate a long walk over fields and would not provide an attractive option in the dark or during inclement weather. Cycling may provide an alternative means of transport, but cyclists would also experience the difficulties of using a busy, unlit rural road, which would be a deterrent to many.

The bus stop on [site address] would necessitate future occupiers walking along the road with the difficulties referred to above. Furthermore, details of the frequency of the service have not been provided to ascertain where it would go to and what level of access it would provide. Whilst the Framework acknowledges opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural locations, given the circumstances of this case, future occupiers of the dwelling would be reliant upon private vehicles to access services, facilities, and employment opportunities as safe and suitable access for all would not be available.

Taken as a whole, the dwelling would not be in a location that would limit the need to travel, and future occupiers would not have a genuine choice of transport modes available. Having regard to these findings, the dwelling would not be in a sustainable location, and would be inappropriate development in the green belt, contrary to the requirements of the Framework and PS Policy ENV2.

Surrounding the appeal building are paddocks and fields, with a few sporadic agricultural and equestrian buildings within them. Beyond the scatter of dwellings that characterises this part of [site address] , the area has an essentially open, rural character and appearance, with hedges and trees forming long linear features amongst the agricultural land.

The hedges and trees along the footpath and near the appeal building contribute positively to this rural nature, with the workshops having a modest, utilitarian appearance, with none of the buildings having windows. These buildings are positioned close to the public footpath, being separated from it by a wire fence, and they are openly visible to pedestrians.

The conversion to a dwelling would not change the size or height of the building, but it would change its external appearance through the addition of windows. Along with the creation of a garden and dedicated parking spaces for two vehicles, the scheme would result in a discrete dwelling in the open countryside. There would be an increase in activity and movements associated with the dwelling, and these would be in addition to those workshop and agricultural uses already occurring.

The dwelling would be separated from the nearest home by the field and the other workshops. It would be positioned at the end of a long access track to one side of a field, and it would not have a legible relationship with the public highway like the other dwellings in the area. The gardens, parking, boundary treatments, and residential paraphernalia and activity associated with even a small home, would intrude sporadic residential development into the countryside, thereby detracting from and eroding its tranquil rural character and appearance.

Given the single storey nature of the appeal building, there would be some screening of the dwelling in longer views particularly when the trees and hedges are in leaf. However, as these are mostly mixed native deciduous species, in the winter the home would be clearly apparent from the public realm, and from the public footpath it would be particularly apparent. Furthermore, landscaping cannot be relied upon to screen development throughout its lifetime, and particularly so in this case given the attractive views available to future occupiers. In addition, some limbs of nearby trees are touching the building with others closely over-sailing the roof. It is likely that works will need to be undertaken to these trees in due course with a consequential impact on their verdant setting and screening of the dwelling.

For these reasons the scheme would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and the suggested conditions would not overcome this harm. There would be conflict with PS Policy ENV3 and its requirements that development contributes positively to local distinctiveness and enhances the character and identity of a locality.

The Council has also considered the policies within the consultation draft of the Framework (2025), pointing out that it reaffirms sustainable patterns of development, focusing it upon existing settlements to help safeguard the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Having regard to the findings above, the scheme would conflict with such objectives, albeit as these policies are at a consultation stage, the weight that can be attributed to them is limited.

[name] STR3 and STR4 seek to direct development to accessible locations, and where beyond the built-up areas of settlements, the primary objectives are to conserve and enhance the countryside, an objective reiterated in Policy DM20 of the New Forest District Council Local Plan Part 2 Sites and Development Management (2014) (SDM).

The Framework requires isolated homes in the countryside to be avoided, although one of the exceptions to this is where the scheme would re-use a redundant or disused building and enhance its immediate setting. The building has a modest functional form, being used as a workshop and store for the agricultural use of the land. Agricultural and equestrian uses surround the site and separate it from the nearest homes. Having regard to this and the findings above, the scheme would be in the open countryside as it would not be related to a settlement, nor would it be part of the sporadic development along [site address] . The presence of a dwelling in such a location would erode the rural character and appearance of the area, rather than enhance it.

Whilst there is an acute shortfall of housing supply within the Council’s area, the scheme would not conserve or enhance the countryside. Nor would it be in an accessible location with a choice of transport alternatives available to future occupiers. There would be conflict with the above referenced policies and with the Framework, and also with PS Policy HOU5 and SDM Policy DM20, as the scheme would not provide a dwelling to meet a local need for affordable housing nor be for a rural worker. Having regard to these conflicts, the dwelling would not be in a suitable location for residential development.

[name]. The New Forest SAC, SPA and Ramsar recognise the national and international importance of these habitats that include bogs, marshes, heaths and woodlands that support a variety of rare birds and insects. These sites are under significant pressure from public access and use, and a net increase in the number of dwellings and occupiers in the area would increase the pressure upon them, eroding their integrity that includes through use causing habitat destruction and disturbance to species. Traffic growth results in adverse effects from nitrogen and ammonia deposition and pollution, particularly near main road corridors.

Additional residents arising from the dwelling would result in increased waste water which would impact upon the integrity of the Solent and [name] and Ramsar, the [name] and the Solent and [name]. These estuarine and coastal habitats are important because of the populations of migratory and wading birds they support. Nutrient enrichment contributes to the growth of weed mats that can smother estuarine habitats.

Given the location of the appeal site, future occupiers would be likely to impact upon these habitat sites thereby having a significant effect upon their integrity, because of increased recreational pressures, air quality impacts, and nutrients in waste water. The appellant has provided a UU to secure mitigation measures for the habitat sites and has accepted the use of a suggested condition to address nutrient levels. This matter will be returned to later.

Other Matters. The Council has acknowledged that it cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, with an acute shortfall of 1.53 years. The provision of an additional dwelling would be a modest boost to housing supply, particularly as it could be delivered quickly. There would also be modest economic benefits arising from the development of the site and from the future spend of its occupiers through supporting local services and facilities. The re-use of an existing building would provide minor environmental benefits, and local residents would benefit from future occupiers providing passive surveillance of the area.

The scheme would be inappropriate development in the green belt and would have a harmful effect upon its openness. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area, and the dwelling would be in an unsuitable location for residential development. These weigh heavily against the proposal, and particularly so as the Framework is clear that substantial weight has to be given to any harm to the green belt.

The provision of an additional home would be a modest benefit, and there would also be modest economic, environmental and social benefits arising from the scheme. However, such benefits both individually and cumulatively carry modest weight, and this would not outweigh the substantial harm to the green belt. Very special circumstances needed to justify the scheme have not been demonstrated.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2017) require the decision maker to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (AA) where there are likely to be significant effects from a proposal, either alone or in combination with other schemes, a duty that falls to occur with the appeal. If the appeal was to be allowed, it would have been necessary to undertake AAs and consider the likely effectiveness of mitigation and avoidance measures for the habitat sites. In doing so the provisions of the UU and suggested condition would have to be scrutinised to ensure that the integrity of the habitat sites would not be adversely affected. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, this has not been necessary.

The Framework requires that planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development. The green belt is one such area, and the scheme would harm the green belt. Although the Council has an acute shortage of housing supply, in this case there is a strong reason for refusing the scheme, so the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework and the development plan and there are no considerations that outweigh this conflict. Thus, for the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.